create_subclip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly identifies a mutating create operation, but it does not state whether the source item is modified, what happens on invalid in/out points, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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. It front-loads the core operation, the source object, and the key parameter concept.

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?

The schema covers parameter semantics well, but the absence of any output schema and annotations means the description should clarify what happens after creation, where the subclip appears, or whether the source is affected. The description is minimally viable but leaves these contextual 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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only a light mapping of 'in/out points' to startTime and endTime. This meets the baseline but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Creates'), a specific resource ('a subclip'), and the source ('a project item') with explicit in/out point behavior. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_subsequence or set_item_in_out without needing to read 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?

No guidance is provided for when to use create_subclip versus alternatives such as create_subsequence, set_item_in_out, or other editing tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and basic description, with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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