editor_cut

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 states the core mutation (cut = remove to clipboard) and mentions undo support, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose whether the clipboard is replaced, whether it fails without a selection, or any side effects beyond the cut.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, destination, and a key behavioral note (undo). Every word earns its place; there is 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the operation and undo support. It could optionally mention prerequisites (e.g., selected nodes) or the lack of a return value, but these are implied and not critical for a standard cut operation.

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, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. According to the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 the specific verb 'Cut' with a clear resource ('selected nodes') and destination ('editor clipboard'), and adds the unique behavioral trait 'with undo'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like editor_copy and editor_paste, which are separate operations.

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 context is clear: this tool operates on selected nodes for a cut-paste workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., editor_copy for non-destructive duplication) or prerequisites like requiring a current selection. The description implies usage but provides no exclusion criteria.

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