place_session_clip_in_arrangement

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating it 'rejects overlap' and supports a 'plan' mode, which suggests a non-destructive planning step. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on overlap rejection (error vs no-op), that execution requires a confirmationToken, or the relationship between planHash and the dry run. The annotations are minimal, so the description could have been richer.

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 two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key constraint stated plainly. No filler or redundant phrasing. It earns its length by delivering the essential purpose and a notable behavioral trait.

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?

This is a seven-parameter tool with a plan/execute pattern and no output schema, so the description carries a heavy burden. It fails to explain the plan-then-commit workflow, what happens when overlap is rejected, or the necessity of confirmationToken for actual execution. The schema covers parameter syntax but not procedural context, leaving too much to inference for safe autonomous use.

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 schema already fully documents all seven parameters. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond mentioning the timeline, which maps to startBeats. It does not clarify the interaction between dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high 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 uses a specific verb ('copy'/'plan') with a clear resource ('Session clip') and destination ('its track's Arrangement timeline'). It also adds a distinctive behavioral constraint ('Rejects overlap'), which helps differentiate it from siblings like move_arrangement_clip or duplicate_arrangement_clip. The action and scope are immediately recognizable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The 'Plan or copy' phrasing hints at a two-phase workflow, but the description never explains when to dry run versus execute or how overlap rejection should influence tool selection. An agent would have to infer usage from the schema.

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