rough_cut

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

Annotations already declare it is non-destructive and non-read-only, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: exactly what is returned (clip plus dropped-with-reasons and missing script lines) and an explicit instruction to surface dropped/missing results to the user. It still doesn't say whether the cut is persisted or how it interacts with the edit recipe.

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?

Front-loads the core action and is dense but purposeful; the return-shape and workflow notes each carry information. There is mild redundancy between 'like cut_take' and 'see cut_take for your own ffmpeg', keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return payload (clip, dropped with why, missing) and the intended follow-up workflow. It is complete enough to invoke and act on, though persistence/error behavior is not addressed for this multi-param mutating tool.

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 including defaults. The description reinforces the gap semantics ('pauses longer than gap') and the takes ordering ('each script line once'), but adds little beyond structured data. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Make a first cut of the takes against script.md', with concrete scope (each script line once, last full try, no false starts/stutters/ums). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling cut_take ('like cut_take', 'see cut_take'), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear situational context: it is 'only a first draft' and should be improved freely by editing the cut and calling cut_take, which effectively names the follow-up alternative. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or prerequisites, so it stops short of a 5.

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