Import SRT subtitles onto the timeline caption track by providing the caption text directly or an absolute file path.
Import SRT captions onto the project timeline caption track. Provide srt text or an absolute filePath.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| srt | No | ||
| replace | No | ||
| filePath | No | ||
| commandId | No | ||
| projectId | No | ||
| idempotencyKey | No | ||
| expectedRevision | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description should add context about what gets destroyed (e.g., replacing existing captions) or any side effects. The description simply says 'Import' without elaborating on the destructive nature or the replace behavior, which is a significant omission given the annotation.
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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then give an input hint. No fluff or repetition, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and only annotations for safety, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain critical behavioral aspects like the replace default (true), the need for projectId, or how idempotencyKey and expectedRevision work. An agent would have to guess or infer too much to use this tool correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining key parameters. It mentions 'srt' and 'filePath' as the two input modes, but ignores the other five parameters (replace, commandId, projectId, idempotencyKey, expectedRevision). This leaves the agent blind about critical parameters like 'replace' and project scoping.
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 the specific verb 'Import', the resource 'SRT captions', and the target 'project timeline caption track', making the tool's function unmistakable. It also clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like bdesign_editor_edit or bdesign_asset_import by focusing on captions.
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 implies usage (import SRT when you have caption content) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only offers a brief hint about how to provide the input, which is more parameter-related than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.