move_clip_to_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to deliver. The text merely restates the tool name without revealing side effects (is this destructive to the source clip?), prerequisites, or how the target track is determined given zero parameters. The label 'expanded operation' hints at hidden behavior that is never disclosed.

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 brief at one sentence and gets to the point quickly. However, the leading 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' prefix is boilerplate that wastes precious real estate without adding information, and the somewhat cryptic 'expanded operation' phrasing detracts from the otherwise efficient structure.

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?

With no annotations, empty schema, and no output schema, the description was the only vehicle for contextual information, and it is entirely insufficient. It never clarifies how a 0-parameter tool successfully targets a track, what state it depends on, or how it relates to the 'move_clip' sibling. The generic prefix 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' appears to be copy-pasted shared text rather than tool-specific guidance.

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?

Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The schema is an empty object and the parameter count is 0, so the description was not required to elaborate on parameter details. A minor deduction would be possible for not clarifying how the track is selected (selection-based vs. playhead-based), but the 0-param baseline of 4 stands.

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?

'move clip to track' uses a specific verb and resource, and the basic action is understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool 'move_clip', and the phrase 'expanded operation' is vague jargon that doesn't explain what makes this variant different. This is clear but lacks sibling differentiation, matching the score-4 definition.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_clip', 'set_target_track', or 'overwrite_clip'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about when 'expanded operation' is preferred, fitting the 'no guidance' benchmark.

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