split_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key side effect (the original clip becomes two separate clips), implying a destructive mutation. However, it omits details like whether effects/keyframes are preserved, whether the operation is undoable, or how the resulting clips are identified.

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 words. It front-loads the action and result, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes.

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 simple two-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the action. It lacks some behavioral context (e.g., side effects on clip content), but given the low complexity, the definition is nearly complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, with both clipId and splitTime having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('Splits') and resource ('clip') and states the outcome ('creating two separate clips'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like razor_at or trim_clip, which operate on timeline cuts or edges rather than splitting a named clip.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as razor_at or razor_timeline_at_time. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions that would make it the preferred choice, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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