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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose valuable semantics — the move is non-destructive and preserves timing, transform, animation, and styling data. However, it is silent on what happens at the source track, placement/index within the target track, required permissions, and failure modes, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the source, the destination, and the key guarantee. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete: it omits positioning within the target track, ordering side effects, auth/permission requirements, and error behavior. The preservation guarantee is the one substantive addition over structured fields.

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 100% and all five required parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (move), resource (overlay item), and both endpoints (from one overlay track to another), which cleanly separates it from siblings like update_overlay_item or move_shot_to_scene. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 description — this is the tool for relocating an existing overlay item between tracks — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (both tracks must exist), and no routing against alternatives such as update_overlay_item or delete/ re-add workflows.

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