move_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool mutates the timeline and then verifies the updated clip boundaries, which is real information beyond structured fields, but it says nothing about how the move interacts with neighboring clips (ripple vs overwrite), permissions, or undo behavior.

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 that leads with the action and the resource, with no filler. The trailing 'verify the updated clip boundaries' clause is slightly vague about what verification means, keeping it out of the 5 range.

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?

Seven parameters with zero required, no output schema, and no annotations mean the description should explain how a clip is identified and that either new_start_time_seconds or delta_seconds drives the move. It does none of that, leaving the agent to guess which identifier combination is valid and what happens when neither time parameter is supplied.

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 restates that the new start time is in seconds, which the schema already says, and it never mentions the delta_seconds alternative path or the clip identification parameters (clip_name, clip_index, clip_node_id, track_type, track_index), which are the confusing part of this parameter set.

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 (Move), resource (timeline clip), and the axis of change (new start time in seconds on its track), which cleanly separates it from trim_clip, split_clip_at_time, and remove_clip. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself (repositioning an existing clip rather than trimming or splitting it), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as selecting or obtaining a valid clip identifier, and no named alternatives.

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