trim_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at frame-accuracy and a post-trim duration verification, but never states that this mutates the project, whether changes are reversible, what permissions or clip-identification are required, or how the all-optional parameter set is resolved. Significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single sentence with no padding, and the core action (trim) is front-loaded before the verification clause. Slightly compound, but every clause carries 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 an annotation-free mutation tool with 8 all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits destructive/state-changing behavior, response shape, and how the clip is identified, leaving the agent without enough to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful mapping of inPoint/outPoint to source vs. timeline boundaries and the frame-accuracy note, but says nothing about the clip identification parameters (clip_name/clip_index/track_type/track_index/clip_node_id) that the schema already covers.

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 (trim) and resource (timeline clip's source inPoint/outPoint or timeline boundaries), which clearly separates it from siblings like move_clip, split_clip_at_time and remove_clip. It does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 explains what trimming means but gives no when-to-use guidance, no comparison to split_clip_at_time or move_clip, and no prerequisites (e.g. which identifier parameters are needed, whether the clip must be selected first). Usage must be inferred.

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