Create a new video project with canvas width, height, and frame rate; set fit to contain for letterboxing or cover for cropping mismatched source aspect ratios.
Create a new project. width/height/fps define the canvas; fit controls how
sources with a different aspect ratio are placed (contain = letterbox, cover = crop).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fit | No | contain | |
| fps | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say what the tool returns (project ID, handle), whether the new project becomes the active one for subsequent add_clip/import_media calls, whether duplicate names are allowed, whether the operation is reversible, or whether anything is persisted. Only the canvas-fitting behavior is disclosed.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the only non-obvious semantics. No filler, no restatement of the tool name beyond the necessary verb.
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 five-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers canvas configuration but leaves the caller unsure about the result and side effects of creating a project. Adequate to invoke, but not complete enough to invoke confidently in a multi-step editing workflow.
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, and it does add genuine meaning for `fit` (contain = letterbox, cover = crop) and ties width/height/fps to the canvas concept. However, `name` is unexplained, and no units, valid ranges, or constraints are given for width/height/fps, leaving half the meaning to be inferred.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Create a new project") and immediately clarifies what the canvas parameters do. It is clearly distinct from list_projects or update_settings by verb alone, but it never explicitly names a sibling or states the boundary (e.g. create vs. update_settings).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as update_settings or list_projects, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g. whether one must import media first, or whether a project must already exist for other tools). The only usage-adjacent content is the explanation of the `fit` enum, which is parameter semantics rather than when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.