label_cut_regions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses that the timeline closes up, that labeled regions collapse rather than surviving unchanged, and advises re-reading label_list afterward to see what remains. It also honestly notes it is 'Not yet independently live-tested against a running Audacity' and contrasts with tested siblings — exceptional behavioral transparency.

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?

Three paragraphs, each purposeful: the first states the action, the second explains scope and side effects, the third notes testing status. Well-organized and front-loaded with the core behavior, though the testing caveat paragraph could arguably be trimmed.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does to the timeline, scope constraints, side effects on labeled regions, and reliability status. No essential operational detail is omitted for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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?

There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds contextual meaning about what the no-parameter operation does by clarifying scope (selected audio tracks, selected time range), compensating for the absence of any inputs.

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 the audio under every label to the clipboard, closing the gaps') and clearly identifies the resource (labeled regions in the selection on selected audio tracks). It distinguishes well from siblings like label_delete_regions, label_silence_regions, and label_split_regions by describing the clipboard-cut-and-close behavior.

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 explicitly states setup steps ('select the audio tracks and time range first') and notes that it acts only on SELECTED AUDIO TRACKS. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when-not-to-use, though it references sibling tools for testing comparison, providing reasonable context without formal exclusions.

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