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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond those annotations: linked partners follow automatically, and landing on another clip overwrites/trims it like drag-drop. That explains exactly what destructive effect to expect.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and then adding the key operational constraints. Every sentence contributes materially to correct invocation.

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?

The description is strong for a destructive batch-move tool with no output schema and full schema coverage. It could be slightly more complete by addressing failure behavior or atomicity for the moves array, but the essential operational semantics are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that toTrackId is optional and must target a same-kind track, and by framing toStartFrame as the landing position under overwrite semantics.

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: 'Moves clips to new positions', with additional scope about linked partners and track targeting. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as trim_clips, insert_clips, or split_clips.

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 description implies the tool is used for repositioning existing clips and notes that toTrackId must be a same-kind track. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative for operations like trimming or inserting clips.

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