add_clip_to_track

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false (additive updates only), yet the description states 'Overlapping items are overwritten' — an update that removes existing track content. This directly contradicts the declared safety profile, leaving the agent with conflicting signals about data loss and reversibility.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its placement anchor, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly what leaves the parameter space unexplained.

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?

With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should carry far more: source-range semantics, how track integers and strings are interpreted, and project/sequence resolution are all missing. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but invocation inputs remain underspecified.

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% across 9 parameters, so the schema provides no semantics at all. The description explains only `timeline_in` and its default; `clip`, `kind`, `track` (integer vs string addressing), `project`, `sequence`, `source_in`/`source_out`, and `audio_channel` are entirely undefined.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Cut a clip into a track') plus a placement anchor (`timeline_in`), which is enough to distinguish it from listers like list_track_items. It does not explicitly separate itself from nearby edit tools such as razor or update_track_item, and 'Cut' is potentially confusable with splitting.

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 supplies placement behavior (default placement is after the last item) which implicitly tells the agent when to omit `timeline_in`. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like razor, create_sequence, or add_track, nor does it state prerequisites such as an open project/sequence.

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