Set the creative context/brief that the editor agent reads on every turn. With video_id it sets THAT video's context; without, the project-wide context. append:true adds to the existing context instead of replacing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| append | No | ||
| context | Yes | ||
| video_id | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the default behavior (replace) and the append option, which is critical for the agent to understand side effects. It does not mention potential overwrite of prior context explicitly, but 'replaces it' is implied and the append distinction covers the main behavioral nuance.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by the two conditional behaviors. Every word adds value.
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 setter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential operational details: the two scope modes, the append flag, and the fact that the context is read every turn. The destructive nature is already captured in annotations. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of video_id (scope selector), append (add vs replace), and context (the content being set). project_id is not explicitly described but is self-evident from the name and required field. The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('creative context/brief'), and clearly distinguishes two scopes (video-specific vs project-wide) and append vs replace behavior. This differentiates it from sibling tools like video_editor_get_context and video_editor_instruct.
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?
It gives explicit guidance on when to include video_id (to set that video's context) versus omitting it (project-wide context), and clarifies append:true semantics. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the parameter-level guidance is clear enough for an agent to select the correct mode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.