remove_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavior: the operation is a destructive edit gated behind a confirmation flag. It says nothing about reversibility/undo, and the backup_project safeguard is only surfaced in the schema, so the coverage is adequate rather than rich.

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, zero filler, and the destructive/confirmation constraint is front-loaded immediately after the action statement. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety gate but omits how a clip is targeted (node id vs name vs track/index coordinates), the ripple/backup side effects, and any failure or undo behavior. The schema fills those gaps, so the definition is workable but thin.

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 100%, so all nine parameters, including ripple, backup_project and the clip-identification options, are already documented in structured form. The description only restates the semantics of confirm_removal, which the schema also explains, so it adds little beyond the 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Remove a clip') scoped to 'the active sequence timeline,' which naturally separates it from move_clip, trim_clip, split_clip_at_time and set_clip_enabled. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting with the disable-instead-of-delete alternative, so it lands just below the top mark.

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?

It states the precondition for invoking the tool (confirm_removal=true is mandatory because the edit is destructive), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to prefer removal over alternatives such as set_clip_enabled, nor when ripple-delete is appropriate versus a plain delete that leaves a gap.

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