Place clip

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies the track semantics ('track only disambiguates same-named regions') and reveals the clip is created from an existing region, but says nothing about permissions, what happens on name/position collisions, or whether the project is written to disk. For a no-annotation mutation tool this is only partial.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical about track disambiguation is the only elaboration and it earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 required params, the description covers the core action but omits return value (e.g., a new clip id), failure modes, and side effects. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's phrasing about the timeline position and track disambiguation largely restates what the schema already documents for the 'at' and 'track' parameters, adding little new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (creates), resource (clip), source (an existing named region), and placement (a timeline position on the region's owning track). This is readily distinguishable from siblings like move_clip (moves an existing clip) and create_region (creates a region, not a clip).

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 the tool applies (turning a named region into a clip), but it never states when to use it versus alternatives such as move_clip or create_region, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the purpose.

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