Move a clip between adjacent clips by adjusting their in/out points, using an offset in seconds to shift it left or right on a video or audio track.
Slide a clip (move it between adjacent clips, adjusting their in/out points)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index | |
| offsetSeconds | Yes | Offset in seconds (positive = slide right, negative = slide left) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that adjacent clips' in/out points are adjusted, which is a key side effect for a timeline mutation. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, edge cases (e.g., no adjacent clips), or response behavior, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 zero wasted words. The parenthetical efficiently explains the key behavioral nuance without redundancy.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the core operation and its side effect on adjacent clips. However, it omits operational context such as required permissions, failure conditions, and how the move interacts with timeline boundaries, leaving it only minimally complete.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters, including the positive/negative meaning of offsetSeconds and the trackType enum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb ('Slide') and resource ('a clip'), and clarifies the operation as moving between adjacent clips while adjusting their in/out points. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like slip_clip or move_clip_to_track.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as slip_clip, ripple_delete, or move_clip_to_track. Usage is only implied by the operation itself, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.