replace_clip

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic replacement action without mentioning side effects, reversibility, permissions, or how existing effects/settings are handled (despite the preserveEffects parameter existing in the schema). This is a meaningful gap 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and states the operation efficiently. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 relatively simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description combined with the schema is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks deeper behavioral/return details, but the operation is straightforward and the required inputs are well-documented, so the overall package is fairly complete.

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%, with all three parameters clearly described in the schema. The tool description itself adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Replaces' with the resource 'clip on the timeline' and the target 'another media item'. This clearly distinguishes the core operation from sibling tools like overwrite_from_source or insert_from_source, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 tool's usage context: replacing an existing timeline clip with a different media item. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings such as replace_clip_media or overwrite_clip, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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