move_arrangement_clip

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by revealing the two-phase plan/execute behavior, staged copies, rollback, isolated undo, collision rejection, and self-overlap support. These are non-obvious behavioral details that materially affect how an agent should call the tool.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The primary action and target are front-loaded, and the important constraints and behaviors follow immediately.

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 tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description plus the rich schema comments are largely sufficient. It explains the unusual plan/execute and rollback mechanics, though it does not explicitly spell out the full call sequence (e.g., obtain a plan first, then execute with the confirmation token).

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?

The input schema already documents all seven parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds overall workflow context but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 operation ('plan or move'), the exact resource ('one exact Arrangement clip'), and the target ('new beat position'). It also conveys the key distinction of preserving the clip's span, which separates it from sibling tools like duplicate_arrangement_clip or delete_arrangement_clip.

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 makes the intended use case clear: repositioning an existing Arrangement clip without changing its span. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the mention of collisions and plan/execute semantics gives enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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