clip_resize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the non-obvious anchor semantics precisely: which edge stays fixed and which edge moves. However, it does not disclose whether resizing trims or stretches clip content, whether the operation is destructive or undoable, or any side effects on the clip's audio/MIDI data.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the anchor behavior explained densely. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the required inputs and the key behavioral choice (anchor). But it omits important outcome details: what happens to the clip's content when resized, any constraints on new_length_beats, and whether the operation is reversible or returns confirmation. An agent can invoke it, but not fully predict the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantic value for anchor, explaining what 'start' and 'end' actually do, and confirms length is in beats. But clip_id is only named, and new_length_beats has no stated constraints or detail about how the length change affects the clip's content.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Change a clip's length.' It goes beyond the name by explaining the two anchor modes, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling clip operations like clip_set, clip_move, clip_duplicate, and clip_remove. Not a tautology.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clip_set, clip_move, or clip_remove. The intended use is implied by 'change a clip's length,' but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing. The anchor explanation is parameter behavior, not usage context.

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