split_clip

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

Annotations show destructiveHint=false, so the tool is non-destructive. The description adds the 'Requires QE DOM' dependency, which is behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens to the original clip (e.g., split into two clips) or any side effects.

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?

One sentence that succinctly states the action and a key prerequisite. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 action with 3 fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain return behavior (e.g., clip objects, success status) or how it interacts with selection state, which could be inferred but is not explicit.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning for parameters like track_type or track_index beyond what the schema provides. 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 action ('split') and resource ('clip'), using the metaphor 'razor'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'trim_clip' or 'move_clip'. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., selected clip or clip at track/position).

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 (e.g., 'razor_all_tracks'). The prerequisite 'Requires QE DOM' is mentioned but no context on when or why to choose this over other split methods.

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