edit_disjoin

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic operation (split at silences) but omits important details: whether the original audio is altered or preserved, if it creates new tracks or clips, how silence detection thresholds are determined (no parameters to configure), and whether the operation is reversible. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence of 10 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action, and easily parsable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks context about side effects (e.g., whether silent regions are removed or retained, whether the original track is overwritten) and how it interacts with the selection. More detail would be beneficial for a tool that has many similar siblings.

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?

There are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (the schema is empty). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. It correctly describes the tool's high-level action without parameter clutter.

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 clearly states the tool splits selected audio at detected silences, creating separate clips. It uses a specific verb ('split') and resource ('selected audio'). Among sibling tools like edit_split and edit_split_new, this one uniquely specifies silence-based splitting, distinguishing it effectively.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify that it should be used when silences are present, nor does it mention when to prefer other split tools (e.g., edit_split for manual splitting). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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