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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with 'keeping their spacing and tracks when free', hinting at conflict handling, but it never says what happens when tracks are not free (overwrite, offset, or fail) or whether new clip IDs are returned.

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 dense sentence with the core placement rule front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical is slightly compressed but every clause carries 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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the central placement behavior but omits return values, conflict behavior on occupied tracks, and the distinction between the two clip-input parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the semantics of `at` and `clipIds` (earliest clip anchors at `at`, relative spacing preserved), but leaves the relationship between `clips` and `clipIds`, and the role of `trackId`, unexplained.

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 and resource ('Copy clips to another time') and adds the placement rule that the earliest clip lands at `at`. This distinguishes it from move_clip and duplicate_clip by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the clipboard framing ('clipIds are copied'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus alternatives such as duplicate_clip, add_clip, or paste_attributes. An agent must infer that this is the paste half of a copy/paste pair.

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