carve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the high-level operation without mentioning side effects, idempotency behavior, or what happens to the original master sheet. The schema includes a 'key' parameter for idempotency, but the description ignores this, leaving the agent uninformed about repeatable invocation.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. It is efficient and contains no fluff. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices important context, preventing a higher score.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or the effect of optional parameters like 'subject' and 'key'. An agent would lack sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names and schema descriptions. It does not explain 'profile' or 'subject' in the context of carving, nor does it clarify the relationship between 'in_ticks' and 'out_ticks'. No extra value is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cut') and identifies the resource ('master cut sheet', 'clip sheet', 'delivery shape'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'splice' (joining) and 'draft' (creating) by describing a unique extraction operation. However, the term 'delivery shape' is domain-specific and not explained, slightly reducing clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'splice' or 'draft'. It does not state prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or mention the idempotency key's role in avoiding duplicate clips. The usage context is implied but not clarified.

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