edit_split

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is in-place, creates no new track, and acts on selected clips at selection boundaries. However, it does not mention whether the original clips are modified destructively, whether the split creates multiple clips, or any undo/safety considerations.

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 core action and scope are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated in a clear, actionable second sentence.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states the action, the target, the in-place behavior, and the required selection state. The main missing piece is explicit routing among split-related siblings, but that is a usage-guideline matter rather than a fundamental completeness gap.

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 compensates by explaining that the tool relies on current editor state ('Select tracks and a time range first') rather than arguments, which is meaningful context beyond the empty 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 states a specific verb ('Split'), a specific resource ('selected clip(s)'), and a precise condition ('at the selection boundaries'). It adds distinguishing detail with 'in place, no new track', which separates it from sibling tools like edit_split_new.

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'), which helps an agent know the required state before invoking. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings such as edit_split_new, edit_split_cut, or edit_split_delete.

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