Update overlay track metadata: name, stack order, visibility, and lock state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Track display name | |
| order | No | Stack order; higher renders on top | |
| editId | Yes | The edit ID | |
| locked | No | Whether the track is locked | |
| trackId | Yes | The overlay track ID | |
| visible | No | Whether the track is visible | |
| workspaceId | Yes | The workspace ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'update' but does not disclose partial-vs-full update behavior, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to omitted fields, leaving a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
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 wasted words. It efficiently identifies the operation and the kinds of metadata being changed.
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?
The schema is rich and fully documented, and no output schema exists, so parameter coverage is adequate. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral context, the description is only minimally complete for a mutation tool with seven parameters.
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%, and the schema documents each parameter including required IDs. The description adds little beyond restating a few updatable field names ('stack order' for order is a slight clarification), so the baseline 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: update overlay track metadata. The listed fields clarify the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as update_overlay_item or update_audio_track.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It implies updating an existing track, but an agent must infer that from the name and schema alone.
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.
