delete_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'delete the clip', which implies destructive action, but does not disclose whether deletion is irreversible, whether it affects playback, if any permissions are required, or what happens if the clip does not exist. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, succinct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no redundancy or padding.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks crucial context for a delete operation: it does not explain how to identify the clip via track_index and clip_index, does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid index), and provides no behavioral reassurance. For a simple yet destructive operation, more detail is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'clip slot', which loosely maps to clip_index, but does not clarify that track_index refers to the track containing the slot, nor does it explain the integer indexing semantics or how the two indices work together. Minimal additive value over the schema.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and the target resource (clip), with specific reference to a 'clip slot'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_clip, stop_clip, create_clip, or duplicate_clip, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with related operations like stop_clip or duplicate_clip. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description, but not explicitly stated.

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