clip_split_at_silences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly explains the targeting behavior and key format, but does not disclose whether the original clip is replaced, whether the edit is destructive, or how silence boundaries are determined.

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 tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then differentiation from a sibling, then parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool, the definition covers purpose, usage, and argument semantics well. It does not describe the result of the split (e.g., what happens to the original clip or how new clips are returned), and it does not mention the similarly named split_range_at_silences sibling, but these are minor gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents the only parameter, key, including its required format 'trackId:itemId'. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs beyond the raw schema.

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?

States a clear action: split one specific clip into multiple clips at silence boundaries. Also distinguishes itself from edit_disjoin by clarifying that it targets a clip directly by key rather than acting on the current selection.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with edit_disjoin and states when this tool is appropriate: when you want to operate on one specific clip by key instead of whatever is selected. This gives an agent a concrete routing signal.

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