edit_split_cut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the key side effect: audio is cut to clipboard and replaced by silence, not by closing the gap. This discloses the most important behavioral trait beyond the tool name.

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 sentences only, with the key distinguishing behavior front-loaded in the first sentence and the invocation prerequisite in the second. No wasted words.

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 with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, the critical behavioral nuance, and how to prepare the selection. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 context by explaining that the operation depends on the user's pre-selected tracks and time range, which is the only meaningful input semantic for this tool.

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 and resource: 'Cut the selected audio to clipboard'. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like edit_cut by emphasizing 'WITHOUT closing the gap - leaves silence where the audio was.' This is precise and informative.

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 necessary precondition: 'Select tracks and a time range first.' It implies when to use this tool via the distinction from cut-that-closes-gap, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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