move_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the move is same-track, confirms success ('confirm it landed'), and specifies a failure condition (destination already occupied). This goes beyond a minimal description, though it does not discuss side effects like undo behavior or return format.

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 sentences contain exactly the essential information: the action, constraint (same track), confirmation, and failure condition. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, and conflict behavior. It could be more explicit about what 'confirm it landed' returns or prerequisites, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke this tool safely.

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 input schema covers both parameters fully (node_id with description, time_seconds with description and minimum). The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that time_seconds is a new start time. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool moves a clip to a new start time on its own track, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trim_clip and split_clip by its unique action and the fact that it stays on the same track.

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 provides clear context: the clip remains on its own track and the operation fails if the destination is occupied. While it does not name explicit alternatives, it implies when to use this tool (repositioning within a track) and gives an important exclusion (cannot move to an occupied destination).

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