split_clip

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the outcome ('creating two separate clips') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether the original clip is preserved or modified, if the split affects project structure, what permissions are needed, or how errors are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and result, making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to explaining the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, or return values. Given the complexity of splitting media and the lack of structured data, more detail is needed to guide an agent effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies 'clipId' identifies the target and 'splitTime' defines the split point, but doesn't clarify units beyond 'seconds' or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('splits'), the resource ('a clip'), and the outcome ('creating two separate clips'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'trim_clip' (which modifies rather than splits) and 'move_clip' (which relocates). The verb+resource+result combination is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the clip must be in a timeline or project), nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'trim_clip' for partial edits. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.