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

Annotations already say readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key side effect an agent would not guess: the preceding and following clips are shortened/lengthened. It does not address edge cases (first/last clip with no neighbour, insufficient adjacent media).

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the mechanism. No filler. Only mild weakness is the somewhat loose 'between its neighbours' phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the pointer to server instructions helps. But for a 4-parameter edit tool with two undocumented parameters, the description leaves out boundary behaviour and the to_frame target semantics, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 50%; clip_id and to_frame have no schema descriptions at all, and the description does not say what to_frame means (target frame of the clip's new start?) or how frames map to the slide. It also omits the fact that timeline_id becomes stale after the edit, even though the schema hints at it.

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 concrete verb+resource ('move a clip') and explains the distinctive slide semantics: neighbours change length so nothing else moves. This implicitly separates it from clip.move (which shifts others) and clip.roll (which moves a boundary without moving the clip), but no sibling is named.

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 'nothing else moves' phrase implies the right use case, but the description never says explicitly when to pick this over clip.roll, clip.slip, or clip.move, all of which sit adjacent in a large sibling set and sound very similar.

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