slip_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait (changes source in/out points without moving clip) but omits details about side effects (e.g., what happens if offset exceeds source limits), whether the operation is undoable, or any prerequisites. More transparency would be needed for a higher score.

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, front-loaded with the action and key behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning without fluff. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the operation's effect. However, it lacks details on return values or error conditions (e.g., invalid node_id). For a well-understood operation, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'node_id' and 'offset_seconds'. It does not elaborate on expected values or edge cases, so no improvement over baseline.

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 explicitly states the action ('Perform a slip edit') and clarifies the effect on the clip (changes source in/out points without moving it on timeline). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like slide_edit or trim_clip, which have different behaviors.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to adjust source range while preserving timeline position), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios. The lack of exclusion criteria keeps it from a 5.

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