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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false), the description reveals that the call is project-scoped, that it returns the project identity, and that anchored elements (zooms, takeovers, texts) re-anchor and follow. These are behavioral details not in the annotations and crucial for the agent to anticipate side effects.

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?

The description is dense but each sentence adds value: project scoping, action, parameter explanation, usage guidance, and side effects. It is front-loaded with the critical 'PROJECT-SCOPED' note. While somewhat verbose, it is structured with dashes for readability and does not waste words.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the after_id semantics, the re-anchoring effect, and the return of project identity. It lacks an explicit definition of the 'id' parameter and does not mention error conditions, but these are minor given the clarity of the rest.

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?

The description explains after_id in detail (what it means, where to find it, and the omit behavior) and reinforces project_id's role. However, the 'id' parameter is only implicitly described as the insert to move via context; it is not explicitly named. Given schema coverage is only 33%, the description compensates for after_id and project_id but could be more explicit about id.

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 clearly states the verb 'MOVE' and the resource 'A SPLICED SCENE', and explains it reorders an inserted clip. It distinguishes from siblings like move_overlay and move_sfx by specifying it's for clips/inserts, and even names the alternative approach of remove+reinsert that should be avoided.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'THE tool for move this clip between those two scenes' and 'put the uploaded video after the intro'. It also provides a clear when-not: 'never remove + re-insert, which costs two versions and the user watches the clip vanish.' This directly guides the agent's choice.

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