Move a transcript-matched segment before or after another match to reorder podcast dialogue without manual timeline editing.
Move a transcript-matched segment before or after another transcript match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | No | after | |
| project_path | No | ||
| source_query | Yes | ||
| destination_query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "source_query",
- "destination_query"
-]New value: +[
+ "source_query",
+ "destination_query"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It does not say whether the move ripples/overwrites surrounding material, whether it is reversible, what session or edit-context state is required, or how ambiguity in the text queries is resolved.
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?
A single tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's four parameters and text-matching complexity.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition omits required context: prerequisites, effect on surrounding transcript/timeline, and query-matching behavior.
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 only partially does. It implies the roles of source_query (the segment to move), destination_query (the anchor match) and position (before/after), but says nothing about the project_path parameter or the format/matching semantics of the two queries.
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 (move) and resource (a transcript-matched segment) plus the target scope (before or after another transcript match). An agent can distinguish it from timeline-based siblings like move_segment_tool or move_clips_tool by the 'transcript-matched' framing. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.
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 only implied: the 'transcript-matched' phrasing suggests this is the text-anchored alternative to move_segment_tool/move_clips_tool, but the description never states when to prefer it or what prerequisites apply. No when-not conditions or explicit alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.