delete_clip

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context — that a single undo_last call restores the deleted clip — which an agent could not derive from annotations or schema.

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 short sentences, action front-loaded, no boilerplate. The second sentence carries independent value (undo semantics) rather than restating the first.

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 undo note plus the destructive annotation give an agent enough to act safely, and no output schema is needed for a deletion. Still, with two undocumented required parameters and no mention of what happens to the slot afterward, the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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 0% for both required parameters (track, slot), so the schema supplies only names and types. The description says 'this clip slot' but never clarifies index base, valid ranges, or how track and slot pair together, leaving the coverage gap unaddressed.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Delete the clip') with a scope qualifier ('in this clip slot'), which implicitly separates it from siblings like delete_track and copy_clip. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the object being deleted is 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?

Usage is implied by the name and the destructive verb, and the pointer to undo_last gives a recovery path. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over copy_clip/delete_track or any precondition (e.g., clip must exist in the slot), which an agent must infer.

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