move_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely doesn't. It reveals that the move is confined to the main track and that indexing is zero-based, but says nothing about whether the move is reversible, what happens to clips shifted by the reorder, whether an out-of-range index errors or clamps, or what the call returns.

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 with no filler; the parenthetical '0 = first' is the one piece of detail that earns its place. It is arguably over-terse for a mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is too thin. It should at minimum clarify the reorder semantics (shift vs. swap), failure behavior for invalid indices, and whether the operation is undoable via the sibling undo/history tools.

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 usefully pins down the only genuinely ambiguous parameter — index is zero-based with 0 meaning first — but leaves project and clip_id entirely unexplained, relying on the agent to infer their meaning from the names.

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) and resource (clip) plus the scope constraint 'main track', which distinguishes it from siblings like trim_clip, split_clip, and add_clip. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 only implied by the verb — reorder an existing clip rather than insert or remove one. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (does the clip need to exist, must it already be on the main track?), and no comparison to overlapping siblings such as delete_clip plus add_clip.

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