Apply a morph transition between two video clips to blend scenes into a single output.
Apply morph transition between two video clips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duration | No | ||
| mesh_size | No | ||
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. | |
| clip1_path | Yes | ||
| clip2_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.4Input schema / properties / overwriteAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.",
+ "title": "Overwrite",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.16.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write-like operation by saying 'Apply,' but it does not explain output creation, overwrite behavior, permission requirements, processing cost, or what happens when output_path already exists.
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 with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity leaves important behavioral and usage details entirely to the schema.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description is still incomplete for a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and low schema coverage. It omits essential usage, parameter, and side-effect context.
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 only 17%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning two clips. It does not clarify clip1_path, clip2_path, output_path, duration, mesh_size, or the overwrite flag's implications.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Apply morph transition between two video clips.' The 'morph' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling transition tools such as transition_glitch and transition_pixelate, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 conditions for when to use this tool versus other transition or editing tools. It implies usage through 'between two video clips,' but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.