edit_split

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'in place' mutation behavior and distinguishes from track-creating alternatives, but omits prerequisites (cursor/selection requirement), reversibility, and the specific result state (two adjacent clips).

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?

Single efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary action ('Split the clip'), followed by location constraints and behavioral modifiers in parentheses.

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?

Appropriate for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema. Successfully differentiates from siblings (edit_split_new, edit_split_cut, edit_split_delete) via the 'no new track' clarification. Minor gap: does not mention that a cursor position or selection must be established prior to invocation.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters. Per guidelines, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion as none exist.

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?

Specific verb ('Split') and resource ('the clip') with clear scope ('at cursor position or selection boundaries'). The parenthetical '(in place, no new track)' effectively distinguishes it from sibling edit_split_new.

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?

Implicitly guides selection by noting the tool works 'in place' with 'no new track', contrasting with edit_split_new. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or prerequisites (e.g., that a cursor position or selection must exist first).

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