edit_disjoin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the primary effect (splitting selected audio into separate clips) and the necessary selection, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether original clips are replaced or new clips are created, what silence-detection threshold is used, or how the result relates to undo/redo.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately afterward. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential operating steps: what the tool does and what the user/agent must do first. It is slightly weakened by the large set of near-sibling silence-splitting tools, but it is still complete enough for basic correct invocation.

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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that the operation relies on the current track selection and time range, which is essential given there are no formal arguments.

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') with a clear resource ('selected audio') and mechanism ('at detected silences'), and adds a prerequisite ('Select tracks and a time range first') that scopes the action. However, it does not distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like clip_split_at_silences or split_range_at_silences, leaving some ambiguity about which splitting tool to choose.

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 provides a concrete precondition: select tracks and a time range first. This implies the intended usage context but gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling splitting/editing tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative workflows.

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