overwrite_clip

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: overwriting existing content and no ripple. However, it omits details such as whether the overwritten clip is deleted, undo behavior, return values, or required permissions. Adequate but not thorough.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key behavior. Could be slightly improved with structured lists, but remains concise and clear.

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 complexity of overwriting in a timeline and the existence of sibling tools (append, insert, move), the description lacks details like return values, error conditions, what happens to the overwritten clip, and the role of the optional sequenceName parameter. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 has 5 parameters with only 20% coverage (trackType described). The description adds no additional parameter details, failing to compensate for low schema coverage. It only implicitly references itemName, track, and time without explaining their formats or constraints.

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 verb 'Place' and the resource 'a project item onto a track at a given time', with the specific behavior of overwriting and no ripple. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_clip and insert_clip, though not explicitly naming them.

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 usage context (overwriting with no ripple) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like insert_clip or append_clip. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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