Copy a clip's source range to a target time and track, overwriting existing content at the destination.
Copy a clip (same source range) to a time and track (overwrite)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | Yes | Seconds | |
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index on the track, 0-based from the left (see get_timeline_clips) | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index, 0-based (V1 = 0, A1 = 0) | |
| targetTrackIndex | No | Track index, 0-based (V1 = 0, A1 = 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical behavioral fact that the destination is overwritten (destructive) and that source in/out points are preserved. It is silent on whether the original clip remains in place (implicit in 'duplicate' but never stated) and on permissions or return value.
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 sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information. The stacked parentheticals make it telegraphic, but nothing is redundant.
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 5-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the essentials are only partly covered: overwrite behavior is flagged, but whether the source clip persists, the source/target track relationship, and expected response are left unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 'to a time and track' loosely maps to time plus targetTrackIndex, but it does not clarify the source-vs-destination track distinction (trackIndex vs targetTrackIndex) or that targetTrackIndex is optional.
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 and resource ('Copy a clip'), plus the scope constraint '(same source range)' and the destination ('to a time and track'). An agent knows what the operation does, but the description never distinguishes it from the many adjacent siblings (overwrite_clip, insert_clip, move_clip, move_clip_to_track), which is exactly where confusion is likely.
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 statement of when to use this versus overwrite_clip, insert_clip, or move_clip_to_track, and no prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent signal is the parenthetical '(overwrite)', which hints at the resulting behavior rather than when to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.