split_clip_at_time

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 real work: it discloses the QE DOM adapter workaround for Premiere Pro 2019's missing TrackItem.split() and states that the operation verifies the clip count increased. It still omits failure behavior (what happens if the time is not inside a clip), whether the split is reversible, and how linked audio/video clips are treated.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence is implementation rationale rather than a spec, but it earns its place by explaining why the tool exists and that it self-verifies. No 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 core action, precondition, and verification, but leaves out what is returned (e.g., new clip IDs), error semantics, and effects on linked clips or adjacent segments. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 track_type, track_index, and split_time_seconds are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the timeline-time-in-seconds semantics but adds no format, edge-case, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (split/razor), the resource (a clip), and the exact scope (a specified video or audio track at a given timeline time in seconds). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools trim_clip, move_clip, and remove_clip without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 implies when the tool applies by stating the split time must lie strictly inside a clip on the track, which is a usable precondition. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., trim_clip, remove_clip) and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing guidance.

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