move_clip_to_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two real constraints: the target must be the same track type, and clip timing is preserved. However, it says nothing about what happens if the target track position is already occupied (overwrite vs. refusal), whether linked audio/video partners move together, or whether the operation is undoable.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and only the two constraints that matter included. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key cross-track constraint but leaves failure modes and side effects (collision handling, clip linking, undo) undocumented. Adequate to attempt the call, not complete enough to predict its outcome.

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 100%, with each of the four parameters documented including 0-based indexing and the V1=0/A1=0 convention. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a clip'), plus two scoping constraints that separate it from generic moves: it must stay within the same track type and must preserve the clip's time. That distinguishes it from siblings like move_clip, insert_clip, and overwrite_clip without naming them directly.

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 'same type' and 'keeping its time' clauses imply when this tool applies versus a time-based move, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. The agent must infer that relocating across tracks with timing preserved is the trigger.

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