edit_join

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation depends on the current selection and that the result is one joined clip. It does not mention whether joining destroys the original clips, whether it is reversible, or how it handles cross-track or gap scenarios, leaving notable behavioral ambiguity.

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 zero filler. The key action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately after. Every sentence 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 editing command, the description covers the expected outcome and the required preconditions well. There is no output schema and no annotations, so it could be more thorough about destructive side effects or undo behavior, but the core invocation context is present.

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 input schema is empty, so the description is the only source of guidance about what the tool consumes. It usefully explains that the real inputs are the current selection: clips, tracks, and a time range. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema and clarifies how the agent should prepare state.

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 states a specific verb ('Join'), resource ('selected clips'), and result ('into one clip'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like edit_disjoin or label_join_regions, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition: 'Select tracks and a time range first.' This tells an agent what state must exist before invoking the tool. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as edit_split or edit_disjoin, so the guidance is useful but not fully complete.

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