timeline_move_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic repositioning action and does not mention side effects such as overlap handling, ripple behavior, invalid position handling, or whether the operation can be undone. A mutating tool of this kind needs more behavioral context.

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 efficient and well structured: one clear opening sentence followed by a concise parameter breakdown. Every line adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the operation and parameter meanings. However, without annotations it omits side effects and edge-case behavior, and it does not mention how conflicts or invalid positions are handled. An agent could invoke it correctly in straightforward cases but would lack guidance for trickier situations.

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, and it does. It defines track_id as the containing track, clarifies clip_index is 0-based, and specifies new_position is in seconds. It lacks constraints like allowed ranges, but the provided semantics meaningfully exceed the bare schema titles.

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, resource, and scope: "Reposition a clip on the same track to a new time position." This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like timeline_seek, bin_move_clip, and clip_set_color, and leaves no ambiguity about what operation it performs.

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 conveys the intended use—moving a clip horizontally on the same track—but does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when not to use it. The constraint "same track" is useful but does not rise to explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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