trim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not specify whether the source clip is modified in place, a new clip is created, or what happens to the original. It also lacks edge-case details (e.g., start > end, negative values) and any mention of output behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and parameters. Every word earns its place, and it is sufficiently concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description omits key behavioral context such as whether the original clip is preserved or replaced, which is essential for safe use in an editing workflow. The schema covers parameters, but the missing side-effect information makes the description incomplete.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, providing clear meanings for clip_id, start_seconds, and end_seconds. The description adds the concept of a 'range' but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond what the schema states. Baseline 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 'Cut a clip to the range [start_seconds, end_seconds]' clearly states the operation (cut), the resource (clip), and the precise parameters (start and end seconds). This distinguishes trim from sibling tools like crop (spatial) and change_speed (temporal speed), making it unambiguous.

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 provided about when to use trim versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or cases where another tool (e.g., crop, fade) would be more appropriate. Users must infer usage from the name and the parameter schema.

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