edit_split_new

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 reveals the key side effect: the original track stays unchanged while audio is split into a new track. It does not cover details such as how multiple selected tracks are handled, the post-operation selection state, or error conditions when no selection exists.

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 sentences with no filler. The action and key side effect are front-loaded, and the prerequisite follows naturally at the end.

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 selection-driven editing command with no output schema and no formal parameters, the description covers the operation, the non-destructive result, and the required preconditions. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying behavior with multiple selected tracks or naming sibling tools for alternative edit operations.

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 formal parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by identifying the real inputs—tracks and a time range—that are supplied via selection rather than the schema. No parameter-level detail is needed because there are no declared 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 states a specific verb ('Split'), a clear resource ('the selected audio into a new track'), and a boundary condition ('at the selection boundaries'). The phrase 'leaving the original track unchanged' explicitly distinguishes this from destructive split/cut siblings, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Select tracks and a time range first') and implies the non-destructive use case by saying the original remains unchanged. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as edit_split, edit_cut, or edit_split_delete, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool.

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