razor_timeline_at_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states the destructive action ('cuts') and the all-tracks default, but it does not explain behavior around locked tracks, track targeting, what a cut actually produces, or the result/error response. This is useful but incomplete for a mutating timeline operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by one clarifying default-condition sentence. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 moderate-complexity editing tool, the description combined with the schema covers the required time, optional sequence target, and optional track filtering. The lack of return-value or post-condition details is a minor gap since no output schema exists, but the core invocation path is clear.

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%, and the schema already documents the time parameter, the active-sequence default, and the track-index defaults. The description mainly restates the all-tracks default, adding little beyond the structured schema; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cuts across multiple tracks in a sequence' and anchors the operation with 'at an absolute timeline time.' It clearly distinguishes the tool by describing its scope and default behavior, but it never references sibling tools like razor_at or razor_all_tracks, so differentiation remains implicit.

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 communicates when to use this tool: to cut at an absolute timeline time, with clear behavior for omitted track arrays. It does not provide exclusions or mention alternative tools, so it offers useful context without explicit routing.

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