move_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('moves') which implies mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to adjacent clips, or error conditions (e.g., invalid clipId). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word earns its place in communicating the tool's purpose.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, error handling, or result information. The agent understands the basic operation but must make assumptions about implementation details and consequences.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (clipId, newTime, newTrackIndex). It doesn't explain units for newTime (seconds are in schema), track numbering conventions, or optionality of newTrackIndex. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('moves') and resource ('a clip') with specific context ('to a different position on the timeline'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'trim_clip' or 'split_clip' by focusing on repositioning rather than editing content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all timeline manipulation tools like 'add_to_timeline' or 'remove_from_timeline'.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open project or existing clip), nor does it specify when to choose this over similar tools like 'trim_clip' for timeline adjustments. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and description.

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