split_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the immediate outcome ('creating two separate clips') but does not disclose whether the original clip is destroyed, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to selections, or any other side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies media.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that immediately states the action and outcome. Every word contributes to the purpose. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is relatively sparse. It covers the basic function but misses important contextual details like whether the split affects the original clip, whether it works on a selection, and what the result is beyond 'two separate clips'. Given the tool's destructive potential, more context is needed for a complete picture.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema ('The ID of the clip to split' and 'The time in seconds where to split the clip'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. There is no need for the description to compensate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Splits a clip at a specific time point, creating two separate clips.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'razor_timeline_at_time' or 'trim_clip', but the action of splitting a single clip at a specific time is distinct enough to serve as a clear functional statement.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with similar tools such as 'razor_timeline_at_time' or 'trim_clip'. The usage is only implied by the name and function, not explicitly stated.

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