timeline_place

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 does not disclose side effects, whether existing clips are overwritten, whether the operation is atomic, what happens on invalid items, or whether a current timeline must already exist. The description only names the action and some item fields.

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 compact and front-loaded. The primary action is stated in the first sentence, and the item-field summary follows directly in a scannable format. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is terse enough to be a reference card but leaves important context missing: how the 'current timeline' is determined, what track_type values are valid, how frame values are interpreted, what happens on partial failure, and how this relates to sibling timeline tools. With no annotations, this is a meaningful gap for such a nested-array tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does meaningfully by explaining that each item can be identified by media_id, clip_name, or path, and lists optional placement fields plus the media_type numeric mapping. This gives an agent far more than the bare 'items' array schema, though it still omits types and units for fields like record_frame.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Place clips on the current timeline.' This is specific and meaningful. However, it does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings like timeline_assemble, timeline_lift, or timeline_ensure, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timeline_assemble or timeline_lift. The description implies the action but not the conditions under which placement is appropriate, what prerequisites exist (e.g., an open timeline), or when another sibling should be chosen.

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