ripple_delete_range

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation affects every unlocked track and closes the gap, which is important scope and ripple behavior, but it does not address irreversibility, undo expectations, or permission constraints.

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 concise sentence with the core action front-loaded and the parenthetical examples adding useful context without waste.

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 ripple-delete mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, scope across unlocked tracks, and gap closure. It leaves minor gaps around undo behavior and locked-track edge cases, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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%, and both parameters are documented as seconds in the schema. The description only refers generally to a time range, so it adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: removing a time range from every unlocked track and closing the resulting gap. It is clearly distinct from clip-level removal or simple gap closing, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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 concrete use cases such as cutting out mistakes, silences, or a section. It does not state when not to use it or directly compare it with alternatives like close_gaps or razor_all_tracks, but the intended context is clear.

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