Export a clip from a recording

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: it discloses that the master video is never modified, that output lands in a clips/ folder beside it, that a new row appears in the Aufnahmen tab, and that a remapped transcript is generated. It omits any indication of processing time/cost for transcoding or permission requirements, which matters for a media-writing operation.

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-loaded with the operation, followed by a compact workflow and side-effects sentence; every sentence carries information an agent needs. The final sentence is densely packed with three facts, mildly reducing scanability, but nothing is filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important ground: preconditions, non-destructiveness, and where the artifact lands. The remaining gap is what the tool returns (clip id, path, status object), which the agent must infer since no output schema exists.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining that multiple ranges are stitched into ONE clip in order and that positions are millisecond word positions from the transcript, clarifying what 'segments' actually means operationally. It does not touch title/format/quality, but the schema already covers those with defaults and bitrate details.

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 ('Cut a shareable mini-clip out of a screen recording') with a precision qualifier ('second-exact'). No sibling tool in the list exports clips, so the distinction is implicit but unambiguous from the operation described.

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 an explicit three-step workflow: call eve_get with type 'recording' to read transcript_segments, pick cut ranges from millisecond word positions, then call this tool. That is a concrete prerequisite chain naming the sibling to use first, leaving nothing to inference about ordering.

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