insertClip

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: clips stay back to back so later clips shift, adjacent same-media clips are joined (joinedIntoNeighbour), and sourceStart/Sec default to the whole asset. It stops short of permissions/error behavior, but the side-effect disclosure is unusually strong for a mutation 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and insertion point, then defaults, then side effects, then alternatives. Dense and mostly waste-free, but the parenthetical joining sentence ('Its media continuing the clip before it makes the two one clip') is convoluted enough to cost a point.

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 5-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers placement, defaults, side effects on neighboring clips, and routing away from `addAudio`/import tools. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., how the join result is surfaced, error cases), which are not enough to block correct invocation.

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 only 20% (only `projectId` is documented), so the description has to compensate and largely does: `beforeClipId` null/omitted places the clip last, `assetId` accepts any video asset of getCurrentDocument, and `sourceStartSec`/`sourceEndSec` select a stretch in source seconds with whole asset as default. Units and defaults are conveyed, though the exact semantics of inclusive/exclusive end times are left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb (place/insert) and resource (a clip of a video asset on the timeline) plus the exact insertion anchor (just before `beforeClipId`). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming `addAudio` and ruling out disk imports, so an agent can tell it apart from `importMedia` and `addAudio` without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use cases (another take, footage already imported in the editor) and an explicit when-not: an audio asset is not footage, use `addAudio`. It also clarifies scope with 'Any video asset of getCurrentDocument works, the primary one too' and negatives the alternative 'Nothing here imports a file from disk.'

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