clip_replace

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions that the timeline placement is preserved, but lacks details on whether the old media is lost, if undo is supported, or any authorization requirements. The non-destructive nature is partially indicated but insufficient.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is well-sized but could benefit from a brief expansion to cover key details without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and three parameters, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist in timeline), return value, and side effects. The tool is left under-specified for an agent to use confidently.

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 input schema coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters. 'handle' and 'file_path' are left ambiguous, and 'preserve_subclip' has no context. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's basic names.

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 (replace) and the resource (media behind a clip), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like clip_relink and clip_unlink by noting that it keeps the clip's place in timelines.

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 when to use the tool (when you want to change the media without affecting timeline placement) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to use instead, such as clip_relink for relinking in the original location.

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