place_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains parameter meanings but omits important behaviors: whether placement overwrites existing clips, auto-adds tracks, or handles clip_name not found. The overall effect on timeline is not disclosed.

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 with no waste. The first sentence gives the core purpose; the second lists parameter meanings. However, the second sentence is a run-on using semicolons, which could be better structured for readability.

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 6 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter mapping but misses overall context: return value, error behavior, timeline interaction. It is not complete for an agent to confidently use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining start_frame/end_frame as in/out within source, record_frame as timeline landing, and media_type as 1=video/2=audio. However, 'track_index' lacks explanation, and 'clip_name' is self-explanatory.

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 ('Place a media pool clip'), the target ('onto the current timeline'), and the key feature ('precise framing'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'append_clips' and 'assemble_rough_cut' by focusing on placement with frame control.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append_clips' or 'assemble_rough_cut'. The description lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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