split_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions splitting and a DOM requirement, but does not describe side effects (e.g., what happens if the clip is locked, whether it creates two clips, return value, or undo behavior).

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 concise, one sentence. It front-loads the core action. However, including 'Requires QE DOM' as a separate piece could be structured better, but overall it is succinct.

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's complexity (splitting with multiple parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. Missing details on return value, error cases, and how track_index and track_type affect behavior, despite a rich set of siblings.

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%; all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format of time_seconds, valid track_index range). Baseline 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 action 'Split (razor) a clip' and the key parameter 'at a specific time position'. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'razor_all_tracks' which splits at the playhead across all tracks, so differentiation is missing.

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 vs alternatives like 'razor_all_tracks' or 'trim_clip'. The only hint is 'Requires QE DOM', which is a prerequisite but not a usage context or exclusion.

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