split_clip

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it requires QE DOM and that effect-keyframe redistribution remains unverified, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also mentions verification of boundaries, which is a behavioral trait.

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 main action, and includes a caveat about QE DOM and unverified redistribution. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description explains the core behavior and a limitation (effect-keyframe redistribution unverified). It doesn't explain return values, but since there is no output schema, that might be acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and constraints.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention 'one track' and 'timeline time' which aligns with the parameters. Since the schema covers everything, a baseline 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 every clip on one track that spans a timeline time' and includes the verification step. It specifies the resource (clips on a track) and the condition (spans a timeline time), distinguishing it from other clip manipulation tools like 'razor_all_tracks' or 'trim_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?

The description implies usage context: it operates on a single track and requires a specific time. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for splitting clips at a specific time. The requirement for QE DOM is mentioned, which is a prerequisite.

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