pr_moveClip

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavior by noting the clip is 're-placed with the same source in/out,' but it does not explain destination-track collisions, overwrite behavior, or other side effects of moving. With annotations present, this is adequate but leaves important mutation behavior unspecified.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool's operation and then specifies the supported move modes. Every phrase contributes to scope or parameter behavior, with no filler. It is dense but not bloated, and the key information appears first.

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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with a nested clip object and no output schema, the description covers the core move semantics and source in/out preservation. However, it does not mention sequence handling, destination collision behavior, or alternatives to this tool. The schema covers many parameter details and annotations cover safety, but the description still leaves meaningful operational context unstated.

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 60%, so the description must add meaning for parameters without schema descriptions. It clarifies that 'by' is an offset in seconds, that 'toTime' moves to a timeline position, and that 'toTrack' targets a track of the same type while preserving source in/out. It still does not explain sign conventions for 'by' or format expectations for 'toTrack,' but it meaningfully supplements 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: moving a clip in Premiere Pro. It also defines the two supported move modes, in time and/or to another track, which makes the core operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like pr_placeClip or pr_trimClip, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'move a clip in time ... and/or to another track,' which tells the agent what task this tool performs. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as pr_placeClip or pr_trimClip. The agent must infer that this is the tool for repositioning an existing clip rather than creating or trimming one.

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