Antecedent of "it" in "dropped the amulet into the bag and hooked it"

Sentence is:

Jim dropped the amulet back into the bag and hooked it through his belt.

Isn't there confusion here on the subject? It feels like 'hooked it' is still related to the amulet when it's actually referring to what he does with the bag.

An alternative would be:

Jim dropped the amulet back into the bag, which he hooked through his belt.

Seems a bit clunky, though.

Am I stressing unnecessarily about this or does the sentence need work?

I think there's very little ambiguity. The sense follows naturally. If the amulet is in the bag, it has to be the bag that's hooked.

Writing the sentence the first way implies a quickness and ease of action, which I think is what you want. It's written as one continuous action (is it meant to be surreptitious?). You're right, the second way is clunkier. Just that tiny comma holds the action a little.

Here's another thing, though. Does it really matter? It's a short, grammatical sentence, soon passed over in the narrative. Do you think the reader is likely to stop reading and think "Now, did he hook the amulet or the bag on his belt?"

Writing takes much longer than reading. You can spend ages polishing your prose. Sometimes you have to let the little things go, or you'll never get to the end.

I vote for the first example, but...