Move a clip and its linked clips to a new start time on the same track. Use this to reposition timeline elements without changing tracks.
Move a clip (with its linked clips) to a new start time on the same track
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newStart | 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) | |
| includeLinked | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — linked clips travel with the moved clip — and that the operation is track-local, but it is silent on collision/overwrite semantics with existing clips, failure modes, and reversibility, and it presents linked-clip movement as unconditional even though the schema exposes an optional includeLinked flag.
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 no filler; the scope constraint and the linked-clip caveat both land before the reader stops paying attention.
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?
This is a timeline mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, yet the description covers only the target position. An agent still cannot tell what happens to clips already occupying the destination range, whether the call is undoable, or what a success response looks like — significant gaps for a write operation.
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 80%, and the four required parameters are documented there with units and 0-based indexing notes, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely aligns: 'new start time' maps to newStart and 'with its linked clips' hints at includeLinked, but it never explains the optional flag or its default, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 (move a clip) plus the decisive scope constraint: the destination is a new start time on the same track. That 'same track' phrasing implicitly separates it from move_clip_to_track, so an agent can route between the two without opening the schemas.
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 'on the same track' constraint implies to use move_clip_to_track when the target track differs, but that alternative is never named and no preconditions (valid indices, unlocked track, existing clip) are stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.