edit_join

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Join' implies a modifying operation, the description fails to state that this is a destructive edit, whether it requires adjacent clips, or what happens to clip properties (e.g., which clip's metadata persists).

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the core operation without filler, appropriate for a simple tool with no configuration options.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It omits crucial context for an AI agent: explicit mention that clips must be pre-selected using select_* tools, behavior regarding non-adjacent clips, and whether the operation is reversible.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. According to the scoring baseline, 0 params merits a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 ('Join') and clearly identifies the resource ('selected clips') and outcome ('one clip'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'edit_disjoin' or clarify that this is the inverse of 'edit_split'.

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?

The description implies a prerequisite by mentioning 'selected clips' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'edit_disjoin', 'edit_split', or 'track_mix_and_render'. It does not state that clips must be selected first using a select_* tool.

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