Move Clip

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it is built on undocumented QE DOM and may fail depending on the Premiere version. It stops short of saying whether the move preserves clip links or what happens on failure.

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 sentence with the most important caveat ('EXPERIMENTAL') front-loaded before the functional statement. No padding, though the parenthetical could be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation/safety profile. The description supplies the experimental caveat that an agent needs before invoking it; only secondary details (link/ripple behavior on move) are absent and are not blocking.

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 coverage is 100%, so node_id, new_start_seconds and new_track_index are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description earns an extra point by clarifying that the track-change path (new_track_index) is the fragile QE-API part, which is meaningful risk information not present in the schema.

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+resource ('Move a clip to a new position on the timeline') and singles out the track-move variant as an optional, separate path. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the near-identical sibling move_clip_to_track, so an agent still has to infer which one to pick for track changes.

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 gives a real usage signal by labeling the tool EXPERIMENTAL and warning it may not work on every version, which tells an agent to prefer it cautiously. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., move_clip_to_track for pure track changes) or states when this tool should be chosen over set_clip_position/trim_clip, so the selection 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.