pr_placeClip

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description adds real behavior on top: insert mode "ripples" (shifting downstream clips), overwrite is the default, and file paths are auto-imported as a side effect. It still omits failure conditions and whether the sequence must already be open.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the default mode and core action stated first. The stacked em-dash clauses make it dense and slightly harder to parse, but no clause is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the core action and the two modes adequately, but leaves bin, sequence, and time-format semantics entirely to the schema and says nothing about what happens on invalid input.

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 only 38%, so the description has to compensate and it partly does: it explains that item accepts a name, media path, or raw file path, and that mode defaults to overwrite with ripple semantics for insert. It says nothing about bin, sequence, or the accepted time formats (the 'seconds' wording is attached only to inPoint/outPoint).

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 (place) and resource (project item on a track at a time), plus the two placement modes, which separates it from pr_moveClip and pr_trimClip. It stops short of naming a sibling or an explicit boundary case, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Use is implied: reach for this when putting an asset onto the timeline. It gives one useful routing hint — a bare file path is imported automatically — but never says when to prefer pr_moveClip, pr_removeClips, or pr_applyEditPlan instead.

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