razor_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys 'cut' (a mutation/split) and single-track scope, but says nothing about whether the split is undoable, what happens if no clip exists at the time, how linked clips are handled, or whether all clips crossing that time on the track are cut. These are significant gaps for a destructive timeline edit.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than optimally informative.

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 3-required-parameter timeline mutation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is one short clause. For an edit operation whose behavior at a given time is not self-evident, more context about effect and reversibility is needed.

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 100%, so trackType, trackIndex, and time are already documented (including 0-based indexing and seconds) by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Cut the clip') and adds a scope qualifier ('on one track at a time') that meaningfully distinguishes it from the sibling razor_all_tracks. It never says which clip(s) at the given time are affected, but an agent can still tell what operation this performs and how it differs from the all-tracks variant.

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 phrase 'one track at a time' implies the choice against razor_all_tracks, but the alternative is never named and no when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g., media under the playhead, targeted/locked tracks) are given. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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