resolve_replace_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that combined replacements are rejected, that source_end_frame is exclusive and auto-matches to original duration, that it validates bounds/locks/ambiguity, creates a recovery timeline before mutating, reports native source-out readbacks separately, and that dry_run makes no edits. This far exceeds a generic statement like 'replaces a clip'.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by dense but non-redundant coverage of indexing, frame semantics, validation, safety, and dry-run behavior. It is appropriately sized for a complex mutating tool with eight parameters.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and eight parameters, the description covers prerequisites (FPS match), validation, safety via recovery timeline, indexing conventions, dry-run path, and duplicate-name handling. An output schema exists, so describing the return shape is not required; nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 explain the parameters, and it does: 1-based indices, media_type 1/2 meanings, source_end_frame exclusivity and zero behavior, dry_run plan behavior, and new_media_id disambiguation. All non-obvious parameters are addressed, and new_clip_name is self-evident.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: replace at the original record position without ripple, immediately distinguishing this in-place edit from timeline mutations like append, delete, or insert. It also scopes the operation by media type and explains the rejection of combined replacements, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It explains the core placement behavior (original position, no ripple) and gives operational conditions such as matching source FPS, media_type semantics, bounds/lock validation, and dry_run use. It does not explicitly point to a sibling alternative or state when not to use this tool, but for an in-place replacement the usage context is clear.

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