move_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add useful context: the clip stays on its current track, and the alternative's destructive behavior is disclosed. It does not describe what happens if the destination time is already occupied on the same track, but the core behavior is adequately clear.

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 intentional sentences: one states the core operation and constraint, and the other explains the routing decision with the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the key distinction is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter move operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the main alternative. It could mention collision or overlap behavior on the same track, but the provided context is strong enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (clipId and newTime), including units in seconds. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but the schema already handles the heavy lifting, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Moves a clip along the timeline', and clearly states the key constraint 'keeping it on its current track'. It distinguishes this tool from the closely related sibling move_clip_to_track by explicitly naming the alternative and its different behavior.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus when to use move_clip_to_track. It even explains why the alternative is a separate call, including the remove-and-reinsert behavior and the risk of overwriting the destination, which removes ambiguity.

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