sound_rm

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that the clip 'stays registered' (not a full deletion) and that 'positions above move down' (re-indexing). This goes beyond the annotation's binary destructiveness and gives the agent a more precise model of the effect.

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 exactly two sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral nuance (stays registered, positions shift) is stated efficiently. It is a model of concision for a simple removal operation.

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 tool with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavior. It would benefit from an explicit mention that sound_ls should be used to obtain the position, but this is strongly implied. The description is otherwise complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with detailed explanations for path and plan, and a clear description for position. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 states a specific verb ('Take'), a clear resource ('one sound record off the film'), and an unambiguous identifier ('by its position in sound_ls'). It also differentiates from sibling removal tools by specifying 'sound' and from sound_add/ls/generate by the removal action. The added detail about positions shifting further clarifies the operation.

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 implies the correct workflow by referencing 'position in sound_ls', indicating that sound_ls should be called first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., overlay_rm, clip_rm), nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended use.

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