edit_cut

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the clipboard destination but omits behavioral details like whether the operation is undoable, what happens if no region is selected, or that it overwrites the previous clipboard contents.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the first states the action, the second states the prerequisite. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the simple zero-parameter operation and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essential usage context (action + prerequisite). Would benefit from annotations describing destructiveness, but sufficient as-is.

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 tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), which warrants the baseline score of 4. No parameter description is needed or provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cut') with clear resource ('selected audio') and destination ('clipboard'), distinguishing it from siblings like edit_copy (which preserves the original) and edit_delete (which doesn't use clipboard).

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ('Select a region first') establishing when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit_copy or specify error conditions when no selection exists.

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