slice_new_asset_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that the operation is asynchronous, queues the result, and requires polling the asset. It also clarifies the result becomes a new version. This goes beyond a simple 'slices' statement, though it omits details like error handling or exact polling endpoint.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action, parameters, outcome, and async behavior are all front-loaded and clearly stated.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough to invoke it and understand the next step (poll the asset). It lacks details on how to poll or what completion state to expect, but it is actionable and covers the essential workflow.

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 input schema only describes 'id' generically and leaves 'start'/'end' undocumented. The description adds meaning by specifying 'start' and 'end' are in seconds and that the slice applies to a video asset. However, it does not explain edge cases (e.g., inclusiveness, bounds, format), so it only partially compensates for the low 33% schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Slice'), the resource ('video asset'), the parameters ('between start and end (seconds)'), and the outcome ('queue the result as a NEW VERSION of the same asset'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'slice_new_asset' which is likely for creating a new asset.

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 provides clear context: the tool creates a new version of the same asset, rather than a separate asset. It also mentions the async nature ('Async — poll the asset') which guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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