trim_clip

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two non-obvious side effects: linked clips are also trimmed, and the operation leaves gaps rather than rippling. It omits whether the edit is undoable, what happens if newStart/newEnd fall outside the clip's media bounds, and it states 'linked clips are trimmed too' unqualified despite the optional includeLinked parameter, which is a mild ambiguity.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: operation first, side effects second, remedy last. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation and its consequences adequately. The remaining holes are the undocumented includeLinked flag and the absence of any error/undo expectations, which an agent would want before calling a destructive timeline edit.

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 coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining that newStart trims *or extends* the head and that source media follows — semantics the schema's bare 'New timeline start, seconds' does not convey. It says nothing about includeLinked, the one parameter with no schema description, so the gap is only partly covered.

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?

Names a specific verb (trim), a specific resource (a clip's edges on the timeline), and defines the two directional parameters in plain language. An agent can distinguish it from slip_clip/slide_clip/move_clip because it explicitly frames the operation as altering head/tail boundaries rather than shifting content.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up alternatives (close_gaps, ripple_delete_range) and the condition that selects them — the resulting gaps. It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer trim over sibling operations like razor_clip or slip_clip, so the routing guidance is strong but one-sided.

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