remove_aspect_shiftPROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Remove one mid-video aspect change by its id (see get_edl).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | Required immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) operation. The description adds that it is project-scoped, does not use the active project pointer, and returns the project identity with the result. This is valuable beyond the annotations, though it does not detail error handling or edge cases.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the scope warning, then the action and prerequisite. No fluff; every phrase contributes. It is efficiently structured for quick agent parsing.
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 simple remove operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it removes, how to identify the target, and the required scope. It mentions the return (project identity) and the prerequisite (get_edl). While it does not specify behavior for invalid IDs or other edge cases, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema provides a detailed description for project_id, covering its immutability and sourcing. The tool description adds that id refers to an aspect shift from the EDL ('see get_edl'), giving semantic meaning to the id parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by linking id to a specific source, making both parameters clear.
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 clearly states the action: 'Remove one mid-video aspect change by its id'. It names the specific resource (aspect shift) and the mechanism (by id), and distinguishes it from the sibling add_aspect_shift and other remove_* tools. The reference to get_edl for finding the id further clarifies the target.
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 description provides context on when to use it: it is project-scoped and requires an explicit project_id, and the id comes from get_edl. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the scope and prerequisite are clearly implied. This gives adequate guidance for an agent.
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.