edit_cut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that audio is cut to the clipboard, but it does not disclose that the source audio is removed, that the clipboard is overwritten, or anything about undo behavior. This is a mutation tool, so those missing details matter.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action comes first, and the prerequisite is stated immediately after, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 simple selection-based command with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explicit mention of the destructive nature of cutting and clipboard overwrite, which leaves a meaningful gap for an agent invoking a mutation without annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by explaining that the tool operates on the current selection of tracks and a time range, which compensates for the empty 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 action ('Cut') and resource ('selected audio to clipboard'), making the tool's core function easy to understand. It implicitly distinguishes from related siblings like edit_copy and edit_delete by specifying the clipboard destination, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Select tracks and a time range first.' However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like edit_copy, edit_delete, or edit_split, leaving the selection context implied rather than explicit.

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