replace_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions preservation of position and duration but does not address effects on existing effects, transitions, linked items, or error scenarios (e.g., mismatched duration). This is minimal transparency 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 14 words with no wasted content. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, context, and key behavioral result.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and important behavioral note (preserving position/duration). It lacks details about prerequisites or side effects, but these are less critical for this straightforward operation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('Node ID of the clip to replace' and 'Node ID or name of the new project item to replace with'). The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Replace a clip on the timeline with a different project item') and the key behavioral effect ('preserving position and duration'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'replace_clip_media' (which replaces only media) or 'overwrite_clip' (which may not preserve position/duration).

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 context (replacing a clip while keeping its timeline placement) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the contrast with siblings is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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