insert_from_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the key behavior (insert edit shifts existing clips), but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., source monitor must have a clip), error handling, or what happens with unspecified track indices. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with a parenthetical clarification. Every word adds value, no redundancy. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema needed, the description covers the core behavior and distinguishes from overwrite. It is largely complete, though it could mention that the source monitor must contain a clip. Still, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters (e.g., default behavior or constraints). 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 a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('clip from Source Monitor at the playhead position'), and distinguishes from overwrite by adding '(insert edit — shifts existing clips)'. This clearly states what the tool does and how it differs from similar operations.

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 usage for insert edits (vs overwrite) by noting 'shifts existing clips', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like overwrite_from_source. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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