update_track_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: move_to sets a new timeline in while keeping duration, trims preserve playback speed, and source frames are relative to clip start. It does not disclose combined-operation behavior or persistence details, but the key edit semantics are covered.

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 short and front-loaded: the first paragraph summarizes all operations, and the second paragraph adds only high-value trim semantics. There is no filler.

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 output schema means return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety traits. But for a 15-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description still omits meaningful context for several routing and selection parameters, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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 description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well for move_to, timeline_in/out, source_in/out, and indirectly for playback_speed and replace_clip, but leaves required 'item', 'kind', 'track', 'project', 'sequence', the version enum values, and exact replace_clip/playback_speed semantics undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Edit a shot') and enumerates concrete edit operations: rename, enable, retime, move, trim, version, swap clip. This clearly distinguishes it from read/list/add/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like update_sequence or update_track.

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 operation list implies when to use the tool: editing an existing track item. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus siblings such as add_clip_to_track, update_sequence, update_track, or razor, and it names no prerequisites.

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