razor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added note that only unlocked tracks are affected is useful scope. However, it does not disclose undoability, selection impact, or other mutation behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and the action stated first. The parenthetical is compact, though the extreme brevity contributes to gaps captured under completeness rather than verbosity.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. Even though an output schema exists, it should clarify the non-time parameters and targeting behavior such as project/sequence context and track identifier semantics.

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% across five parameters. The description only loosely maps 'time' to 'at a frame' and 'track' to '(or one track)'; it leaves kind, project, sequence, and track identifier formats undocumented, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 action, 'Cut', and a clear scope, 'every unlocked track (or one track) at a frame'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling editing tools, but the verb and resource are understandable without opening the 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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites. It describes the operation but does not tell an agent when to choose razor over sibling tools such as delete_track_items or update_track_item.

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