move_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the most important behavioral constraint: the missile clip stays on its current track. It also contrasts with the destructive remove-and-reinsert behavior of the sibling, giving a fuller safety picture, though it does not mention outputs, permissions, or edge cases like timeline boundaries.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core behavior, and dedicates the second sentence to a necessary distinction. Every word contributes.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly. The explicit contrast with move_clip_to_track also prevents common misuse.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does reinforce that newTime corresponds to the timeline position.

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 a specific verb ('Moves') and resource ('a clip along the timeline') and clearly scopes it to the current track. It also names the sibling tool move_clip_to_track for the track-changing case, so the two are unambiguously distinguishable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate: moving to a different track should be done with move_clip_to_track. It even explains why that is a separate call, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to choose.

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