edit_split_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the key non-obvious behavior: deletion leaves silence rather than closing the gap. This is the critical trait an agent needs to know. It doesn't mention reversibility or output, but for a simple destructive edit that is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and its distinguishing outcome in clear terms, and the second sentence provides the necessary setup. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description fully covers what the tool does, how its behavior differs from related edits, and what the user must do before invoking it. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about individual parameters. The description adds the operational precondition, 'Select tracks and a time range first,' which is useful context and goes beyond what the empty schema provides. This earns a strong score despite no formal parameters.

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 identifies the operation ('Delete the selected audio') and the distinctive behavior ('WITHOUT closing the gap - leaves silence where the audio was'). This sets it apart from sibling tools like edit_cut and edit_delete, which presumably close the gap. The purpose is fully transparent.

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 prerequisite is explicitly stated: 'Select tracks and a time range first.' The behavioral contrast conveyed by 'WITHOUT closing the gap' also implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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