reorder_track

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

Annotations only indicate read/write and destructive characteristics; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that ALL clips become gapless and that other tracks remain unchanged. This goes beyond what the annotations or schema communicate.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and every part of the sentence adds useful information about scope and side effects.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with 4 required parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions. A one-sentence overview is insufficient: the agent cannot know what 'name' and 'new_name' mean, or that 'dry_run' defaults to true, which may prevent the operation from actually executing.

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%, and the description only indirectly clarifies 'track' and 'clip_ids'. It provides no explanation for required parameters like 'name', 'new_name', or for behavior-affecting parameters like 'dry_run' and 'include_plan', leaving the agent to guess.

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 a specific verb and resource: reorder all clips of one track into a gapless sequence. It also distinguishes scope by noting 'ALL clips' and that other tracks remain unchanged, which separates it from siblings like ripple_delete or batch_edit.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when reordering all clips on a single track. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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