rename_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about prerequisites (the clip must already exist), whether the rename is reversible, whether it mutates only timeline display or project metadata, or what errors look like. For a write operation indexed by track/clip position, this is a substantial gap.

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, but it is arguably too terse for a four-parameter mutation – there is no second sentence earning its place because no second sentence exists.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, no stated return value and no description of how positional indexing resolves or what happens on an out-of-range clip index. The description is far too thin for the complexity of addressing a specific clip on a specific track.

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 75%: trackType, trackIndex and clipIndex are documented in the schema (including the 0-based convention and a get_timeline_clips cross-reference), but newName has no description at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (rename) and resource (a clip instance on the timeline), which separates it from rename_track, rename_sequence and rename_project_item by resource noun. It never explicitly says how it differs from those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though rename_project_item and rename_track sit in the same toolset and an agent must decide whether a timeline clip's name and a project item's name are the same or different things. Nothing tells the agent when this call is appropriate.

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