razor_at

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it very well. It discloses non-destructive behavior, reversibility via Ctrl+Z, the CEP helper requirement, the audio/video unlinking caveat for per-track cuts, and that the result always includes activeSequence for detecting mid-session sequence switches.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action, then progresses naturally through scope semantics, caveat, usage guidance, and return value. The structure is clear, scannable, and free of filler.

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?

In the absence of an output schema and annotations, this description is unusually complete. It covers prerequisites, parameter pairing constraints, side effects, a usage scenario, and the returned activeSequence field. There is little an agent needs to know to use the tool correctly that is not addressed.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, but the description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: the default scope, the requirement that trackType and trackIndex appear only when scope='track', and the handler-enforced pairing that JSON Schema cannot express. This meaningfully aids correct invocation.

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 and resource: cut tracks in the active sequence at provided times. Adds important precision by clarifying it adds cut boundaries only and produces no content removal, and the scope enumeration further separates it from all-track or split variants. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does and how it differs from similar razor-related siblings.

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?

Gives explicit usage context with a concrete example: 'cut the timeline at the 10 speaker transitions' followed by manual review, and frames it as preferable when the full Lift/Extract flow is not needed. It also notes the CEP helper prerequisite. It does not name alternatives like razor_all_tracks or define exclusion cases, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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