split_range_at_silences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core operation and scope. However, it does not explain the effect on existing clips, whether the operation is destructive or undoable, what silence detection criteria are used, or what happens if no clips are selected.

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 with the primary action, followed by the key prerequisite and parameter definitions. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, selection prerequisite, and parameter semantics. The main gap is the lack of detail about silence detection behavior and potential side effects, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining start and end as times in seconds and noting that end must be >= start. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema fields, though it could clarify range inclusivity and units relative to the project timeline.

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 action: automatically split every clip on selected tracks within a time range at detected silence boundaries. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like clip_split_at_silences, which likely targets individual clips rather than selected tracks and a range.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to select tracks first via select_tracks, which is a concrete and necessary precondition. It does not discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as clip_split_at_silences or truncate_silence, 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.