link_clips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to. It never states that this is a mutating timeline operation, whether existing links are replaced or added to, whether the operation is reversible (via unlink_clip), or what happens if the same clip appears in multiple link groups.

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 front-loaded sentence with an inline example and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

A no-annotation mutating tool with a nested-object parameter, no output schema, and no explanation of effect or failure modes. For a timeline-editing operation on an NLE, an agent needs to know preconditions and consequences, and neither is present.

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 reported as 0% at the parameter level: the top-level "clips" array has no description at all, though its nested fields do carry index/track-hint text. The one-sentence description hints at the required minimum of two clips and cross-track pairing, but never explains the array shape, ordering, or what a valid link group looks like.

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 ("Link clips together") and the parenthetical example clarifies that linking spans track types, which is genuinely informative. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling unlink_clip, but the naming is unambiguous enough that an agent can distinguish the pair.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus unlink_clip, no prerequisites (e.g. clips must belong to the same sequence, must be adjacent or overlapping), and no statement about what linking changes in the timeline. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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