move_clip

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

Crucial behavioral facts are disclosed: that on this Premiere build the operation is remove-and-reinsert (can overwrite destination contents) and that the clip receives a new id. This goes beyond what annotations alone would provide (none provided), though the description stops short of listing side effects like track-locking or permission prerequisites.

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; the first defines operation and scope, the second explains the destructive alternative and names the sibling call. No filler or repetition.

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 2-parameter no-output mutation operation, the description covers core semantics: movement target, track preservation, cross-track behavior, and overwrite risk. It omits permission/error details, but the schema plus known annotation level make this sufficient.

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?

Input schema already has 100% parameter coverage with functional descriptions for both clipId and newTime. The text adds 'in seconds' to newTime, but this duplicates schema info; no deeper guidance on accepted time formats or precision is provided.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource: 'Moves a clip along the timeline' plus scope constraint 'keeping it on its current track.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool move_clip_to_track, making the core purpose unmistakable.

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?

Directly states when to use this tool vs. the alternative: 'To move a clip to a different track, use move_clip_to_track' – naming the exact sibling tool. This gives the agent clear routing.

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