split

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what happens to the original clip, whether the timeline is mutated in place, whether the operation is reversible, or whether the split produces two new clip objects.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a two-parameter tool, although the brevity does come at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter details.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only information source. It leaves important invocation details unknown, such as time units, error conditions, and whether the split changes the existing clip or creates new clips.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds the notion that t is a 'timeline time', but it doesn't specify units, valid ranges, or how clip_id is resolved. Only t receives any semantic clarification.

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 states a specific verb ('split'), a resource ('a clip'), and a location ('at timeline time t'). The operation is clearly distinct from sibling tools like trim or ripple_delete, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trim, ripple_delete, or move. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent's inference.

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