Import SRT subtitle content into a new managed revision. Invalid cue lines trigger explicit failure instead of partial imports, ensuring data integrity.
Import SRT text into a new managed revision. Invalid cues fail explicitly; no partial import.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No | #FFFFFF | |
| track | No | 字幕 | |
| offset | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| new_name | Yes | ||
| font_size | No | ||
| include_plan | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description adds two concrete behavioral facts: invalid cues cause explicit failure and imports are atomic (no partial import). It does not contradict annotations, though it omits dry-run behavior.
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 two short sentences, with the primary operation first and the failure guarantee second. It is tightly written and every phrase adds information.
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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, this description is too thin: it does not explain how parameters relate to the operation, what a successful import returns, or the role of dry_run and include_plan. Essential operational context 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?
The input schema has 9 parameters at 0% description coverage, and the description only weakly maps 'SRT text' to content and new_name. No explanation is provided for dry_run, include_plan, offset, font_size, track, or color, so the agent must guess at their semantics.
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 names the action ('Import'), the resource ('SRT text'), and the destination ('a new managed revision'), making the tool's role clear against siblings like export_srt and style_subtitles. It avoids vague language and communicates a specific operation.
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 the use case—when SRT text should be ingested as a managed revision—but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternatives such as edit_draft or export_srt. There is no way for an agent to know when not to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.