Re-cut a clip from an edited segment list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does explain that times are in the ORIGINAL source video, that segments are concatenated in order, and that going outside the clip's original range requires retained source video and re-runs the reframe engine. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original clip is replaced or a new one created), potential errors, or any permissions or rate limits. It covers the key mechanics but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, tightly written, and front-loads the purpose before explaining key constraints. Every clause adds value: the engine reference, time units, concatenation order, and the range/reframe condition. No fluff or repetition. This is a model of concise, structured documentation.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry a lot. It covers the core behavior and the critical constraint about retained source video. However, it does not explain what the tool returns after re-rendering, how to access the result, or what happens to the original clip. An agent would not know whether the operation is destructive or returns a new clip object. Given the complexity and missing output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 coverage is 83% (5 of 6 params described). The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that segments are concatenated in the given order, that times are in the source video's seconds, and that reordering/dropping is possible. This goes beyond the simple 'Seconds in the source video' schema descriptions. For the one undocumented param (job_id), it's an ID that is self-explanatory. The description enhances understanding of segments and the reframe behavior, justifying a score above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-render one clip from a new list of source-video segments.' It names the exact operation and scope, and adds useful context ('the same engine behind the dashboard's clip editor'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_clips or add_subtitles, which are about different operations.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains what it does but does not mention when it is appropriate or when to prefer a sibling (e.g., 'use process_video for initial processing, not here'). An agent must infer from the sibling names that this is for re-cutting an existing clip, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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