edit_split_cut

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the key behavioral trait (creates silence rather than joining clips), but lacks details on reversibility, cursor position after operation, or return values.

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 parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place—'without closing the gap' and 'leaves silence' are distinct value-adds that prevent confusion with standard cut operations.

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 tool's narrow scope (0 params, no output schema, simple edit operation), the description is sufficient. It explains the critical distinction from other cut variants; only minor details like post-operation selection state are missing.

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 scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. No parameter semantics are required 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 specific verb 'Cut' with resource 'selected audio' and clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'edit_cut' by specifying 'without closing the gap' and clarifying in parentheses that it 'leaves silence where audio was.'

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 phrase 'without closing the gap' implies when to use this tool (when timeline position must be preserved), but it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'edit_cut' or state when NOT to use it.

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