slip_edit

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

The description explains the core behavior of modifying source in/out points without moving the clip. Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, which aligns. No contradiction, but additional details on side effects or permissions would improve transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and adding a brief implementation note. Every sentence is meaningful and concise with no waste.

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 simple edit tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation. It could mention that the clip is modified directly, but it's sufficient given the complexity and parameter coverage.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (node_id and offset_seconds). The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a slip edit on a clip, specifying that it changes source in/out points without moving the clip on the timeline. This distinguishes it from other edit tools like roll_edit or slide_edit.

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?

While not explicitly stating when to use or not use alternatives, the description clarifies the specific behavior of altering source content without timeline position change, which implies the appropriate context. Sibling tools suggest other editing actions, so the description helps differentiate.

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