retime_rm

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and the description aligns by saying something is taken away. It adds a clarifying behavioral consequence — the removed span reverts to 1x, meaning footage isn't deleted, only the speed effect is lifted. It doesn't disclose reversibility or error handling, but with the annotation carrying the destructive-safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, tightly written sentence with three distinct clauses: the action ('take away'), the addressing scheme (position in retime_ls), and the consequence (plays at 1x again). Every word earns its place and the action is front-loaded.

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 destructive single-item removal with an output schema present and fully documented parameters, the description plus schema covers what to remove, how to reference it, and what the outcome is. The only minor gap — indexing base for 'position' — is a schema-level concern rather than a description omission.

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 every parameter (path, plan, position) is already fully documented. The description's 'by its position in retime_ls' adds no meaning beyond the position parameter's own schema description, which repeats the same phrase. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Take one stretch away' — removal), the resource (a stretch), and how it is identified (by its position in retime_ls), with the consequence that the span plays at 1x again. This is clear and unambiguous, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling retime_add/retime_ls beyond the verb and the positional reference, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 points the agent to the correct addressing scheme — the position comes from retime_ls — which implies listing first and gives clear operational context for how to invoke the removal. It offers no exclusions or alternative-selection guidance, but the target identification guidance is concrete and directly actionable.

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