Split clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that the split applies across multiple tracks and names the specific error code returned on failure. It still omits whether the split is undoable or what permissions/project state are required, so it is not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the operation and then the failure mode, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the action's effect, its cross-track scope, and its error behavior, which is sufficient for a simple mutation. Only minor gaps remain, such as undo semantics or required project state.

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%, so 'at', 'unit', and 'project' are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'given timeline position' only restates the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 precise verb (splits), the resource (the clip under a given timeline position), and the scope (on every track that has a clip there), which clearly separates it from siblings like move_clip or remove_clip.

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?

Anchors the tool to a familiar equivalent ('the GUI's Split command') and tells the agent the failure condition (nothing_to_split when no clip spans the position), but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as create_region or separate_stems.

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