label_split_regions

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that order does not matter, that splitting does not shift anything, and that labels remain in place. This addresses common concerns about non-destructive splitting, though it does not mention undo behavior or whether all clips/labels are affected.

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 front-load the main action and scope, then add only relevant behavioral clarifications. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 largely sufficient: it states what happens and reassures about ordering and label placement. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state whether the split applies to all audio clips globally, but 'the audio clips' strongly implies so.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description need not compensate for missing schema coverage of 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 uses a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('audio clips') and clearly defines scope ('at every label's start and end boundary'). It is clear and accurate, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like label_cut_regions or label_delete_regions, relying on the word 'split' alone to imply non-destructive behavior.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to split audio at label boundaries without shifting content. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer (e.g., label_cut_regions for cutting/deleting regions). The context is implied rather than stated.

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