edit_split_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clarifies that a new track is created, but omits critical behavioral details: whether the selected audio is moved (removed from original track) or copied, and whether the original track closes the gap or remains silent. This ambiguity is significant for a destructive-looking edit operation.

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 of eleven words with no filler. It is perfectly front-loaded with the action verb and every phrase contributes essential information about the operation's scope and destination.

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 zero-parameter complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the primary function. However, it falls slightly short of completeness by not clarifying the impact on the source track (move vs. copy behavior), which is relevant given the tool's naming similarity to other split variants.

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, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, though it implicitly references the 'selection' state which is managed by other tools.

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 ('Split'), identifies the resource ('selected audio'), and crucially differentiates from sibling tool 'edit_split' by specifying the destination ('into a new track'). The scope is precisely bounded by 'selection boundaries'.

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 usage context by stating the outcome (creation of a new track), allowing inference of when to use it (when you want to isolate a selection to its own track). However, it lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'requires an active selection') and does not contrast with similar siblings like 'edit_split' or 'edit_split_cut'.

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