cut_music

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions cutting to length, musical boundaries, and sting-out types. However, it does not explain whether the operation is destructive (though 'dry_run' suggests preview mode), what happens to the original audio, or how output is handled. Partial transparency.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise, though breaking it into structured items could improve readability without adding length.

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?

Given 8 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Missing details on essential parameters (e.g., dry_run, confirm) and output behavior limit completeness.

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 coverage is only 13% (only bar_hint has a description). The description indirectly explains target_seconds (target length) and sting (sting-out type), but does not cover other parameters like confirm, dry_run, tail_fade, output_path, or bar_hint. This leaves significant gaps in agent understanding.

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 tool cuts a song to a target length, ending on a musical boundary with a smooth sting-out. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tighten_dialogue' or 'beat_grid' by focusing on music and sting effects. However, 'musical boundary' is somewhat vague and could be more precise.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools cover different editing tasks (e.g., dialogue tightening, assembly), but the description does not provide any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' advice, 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.