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

The annotations already mark the operation as destructive, and the description adds valuable detail by explaining that other clips on the track are renumbered. It also clarifies track scope and the video_id disambiguation behavior. This goes beyond the structured annotation without contradicting it.

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 deliver the core action, the side effect on other clips, and the optional disambiguating parameter. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 mutating operation with no output schema, the description covers the primary action, side effects, and optional video_id behavior. Minor gaps remain around index bounds and what the response looks like, but the essential calling context is 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 description coverage is 0%, and while the description explains that to_index is a 0-based index and video_id defaults to the main video, it does not clarify clip_id or project_id semantics beyond their names. It compensates partially but not fully for the absent schema descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a clip to a new 0-based index on its track.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add or remove by emphasizing repositioning within an existing track.

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 gives clear operating context, such as renumbering and the optional video_id default, but it never explicitly compares this tool to alternatives like video_editor_add_clip or video_editor_remove_clip. It is usable, but leaves the agent to infer when reorder is the right choice.

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