add_clip

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behaviors: append-by-default with optional index insertion, and a 5-second default duration for images. It stays silent on mutation side effects, what happens with out-of-range src_out, how volume defaults are applied, and whether the operation is undoable.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and range semantics, with the placement default and image duration appended as useful qualifiers. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors (append vs. insert, default image duration) that an agent could not infer. The remaining gap is the unmentioned volume parameter and asset-existence prerequisite.

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%, so the description must compensate; it explains src_in, src_out, and index semantics well. However, volume, project, and asset_id are never mentioned, and the relationship between src_in/src_out and the resulting clip length is only hinted at via the image default.

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: places a clip from an asset onto the main track, with explicit src_in/src_out range semantics. This clearly separates it from sibling mutations like add_text, add_music, or move_clip, though it never names an alternative outright.

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 verb and the 'appends unless `index` is given' clause, which tells the agent how placement behaves. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over add_music/add_text/import_media, nor a stated prerequisite that the asset must already exist.

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