clip_trim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that audio is discarded, exactly how positive and negative delta_sec behave, and that min_clip_duration constrains the result. It could go further by stating whether the operation is destructive/undoable or what happens on failure, but core behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clarifying live-confirmed example and compact parameter docs. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary padding.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides enough detail to call it correctly: all parameters, edge semantics, and minimum duration are explained. It is slightly incomplete on return values and failure behavior, but those are secondary for this tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: key format, side values, delta_sec direction, and min_clip_duration default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input 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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: trimming a clip's left or right edge inward by a delta in seconds and discarding audio. It is specific and self-contained, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like edit_trim, so it misses the top score.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for trimming an edge by a time delta. It references clip_stretch's convention and explains positive/negative effects, but it never states when to choose clip_trim over edit_trim, edit_cut, edit_split, or other related tools.

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