delete_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a destructive mutation it says nothing about irreversibility, whether the underlying clip data is lost, whether an empty/occupied slot matters, or what happens on an invalid index — all of which an agent needs before invoking a delete.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but it is well-formed and wastes nothing.

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 (2 fully documented params, no output schema), so the structural information is complete enough to call it correctly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the destructive semantics and failure behavior are never communicated, leaving a real gap for a delete operation.

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%: both track_index and clip_index are documented as 0-indexed positions directly in the schema. The description adds no format, range, or indexing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ("Delete clip") plus the scope ("from clip slot"), which is enough to separate it from siblings like create_clip, fire_clip and stop_clip. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose itself is 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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus other clip operations, no prerequisites (e.g. clip must exist, track must not be armed), and no mention of related siblings such as create_clip or bulk_edit_clips. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the name alone.

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