Blend two video clips with a pixelated transition, controlling pixel size and duration for a stylized scene change.
Apply pixelate transition between two video clips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duration | No | ||
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. | |
| clip1_path | Yes | ||
| clip2_path | Yes | ||
| pixel_size | No | ||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about mutation semantics, overwrite behavior, whether inputs must share dimensions/framerate, or how duration affects the result. Beyond naming the transition, it discloses no runtime 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the six-parameter surface.
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 no annotations, only 17% schema coverage, and six parameters, the description is far too thin. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the input-side and behavioral gaps remain significant.
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 coverage is only 17%, so most of the six parameters (duration, pixel_size, overwrite) are undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'between two video clips' loosely maps to the two path parameters but adds nothing about pixel_size or duration 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 states a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('pixelate transition') and clarifies it works between two video clips. It is clear but never distinguishes this from sibling transitions like transition_glitch or transition_morph, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 explicit statement of when to choose a pixelate transition over glitch/morph, and no mention of prerequisites or constraints. Usage is only implied by 'between two video clips', which the schema already conveys via clip1_path/clip2_path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.