create_compound_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it mostly restates parameter mechanics. It does not disclose side effects such as what happens to the original timeline items, whether selection is required, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur on the timeline. The word 'create' implies mutation, but the actual behavioral consequences beyond creating the clip are not 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 efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact Args section. Each parameter line earns its place by adding examples or clarifying defaults, though the formatting is slightly verbose and largely mirrors the schema fields.

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?

The description covers all parameters and provides useful examples, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, the tool lacks context around practical usage context, prerequisites, and behavioral side effects, leaving an agent with partial information about the full impact of the operation on the timeline and its items.

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 does: it explains item_ids as a list, item_id as a single id with 'playhead' default, name as the new clip's name, and start_timecode as an optional custom timecode. It also adds examples and clarifies the fallback behavior when item_ids is omitted, which is essential and not present in the schema.

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 action and resource clearly: it 'create[s] a compound clip combining one or more timeline items into a single container clip.' This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like split_clip or delete_clips, which address different timeline editing operations.

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 implies the use case through 'combining one or more timeline items into a single container clip', and explains the distinction between item_ids and item_id with a fallback rule. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention prerequisites such as having a timeline open or whether it replaces the original items.

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