comp_add_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. 'Append' implies in-place mutation of the composition, but the description does not disclose whether media must already be imported, what happens to existing timeline content, how `duration` and `in` behave, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 action-focused sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it is so sparse that it misses important invocation detail that could also be conveyed concisely.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 4 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin for reliable invocation. An agent is left without information about how to obtain required IDs, what `in` and `duration` mean, what the tool returns, or what side effects occur.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not: `comp_id`, `media_id`, `duration`, and `in` are left without explanation. The parameter names and types give some signal, but `in` is ambiguous and duration units are never specified.

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 states a specific action ('Append'), a resource type ('video clip'), and a target ('the composition'). This distinguishes it from clearly different siblings like comp_add_text or comp_add_transition, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from comp_add_overlay or other comp_* tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many comp_* and clip_* siblings available, the description provides no context about prerequisites, expected workflow, or when to prefer a different tool.

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