slice_new_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the slice is queued (async operation) and creates a new asset (non-destructive), and optionally adds to a lightbox. However, it does not mention whether the operation returns a job ID, any permissions required, or what happens to the original asset beyond implied non-destructiveness.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and parameters, with no superfluous detail. Every phrase contributes value: the action, the unit specification, the 'new asset' distinction, and the optional lightbox behavior.

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 mutating, queued action with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key side effects, but lacks details about the returned result (e.g., job ID, asset ID) and any constraints (e.g., start < end). It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves important operational context unspecified.

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?

The schema leaves `start` and `end` without descriptions, but the description adds crucial meaning by specifying they are in seconds. It also clarifies that `lightbox_id` is optional. The `id` parameter description in the schema is minimal, and the description doesn't add more, but with 50% coverage, the added units and optionality compensate well.

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 identifies the action (slice), resource (video asset), and output (brand-NEW asset), and distinguishes it from the sibling `slice_new_asset_version` by explicitly stating 'new asset' rather than a version. It also mentions the optional lightbox addition, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is for creating a new sliced asset, and the qualifier 'brand-NEW' hints at when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like `slice_new_asset_version`. Without an explicit comparison, the usage guidance remains implied rather than clearly stated.

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