Build source-backed manifests, selections, and composition plans with previews and validation checks to verify media before editing.
Build source-backed manifests, selections, compositions, previews, and checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. |
| 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: +falsev1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioural disclosure, and it does not say whether this writes to disk, what artifacts it creates, whether it consumes credits or requires existing source media. 'Source-backed' hints at provenance requirements but does not explain them; the presence of an 'overwrite' flag implies filesystem side effects that are never described.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good structurally. However, the brevity is achieved by listing jargon nouns rather than by precise phrasing, so it is under-specified rather than concise.
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 for a tool taking a free-form nested request object with zero annotations the description is far too thin. Nothing lets an agent construct a valid call without trial and error.
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 50%: only 'overwrite' is documented in the schema. The required 'request' parameter is an opaque, schemaless object (additionalProperties: true) and the description says nothing about its expected shape or contents, so the most important input is undocumented in both places.
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 is a loose noun list ('manifests, selections, compositions, previews, and checks') under a generic verb ('Build'). It never says whether this produces a plan document, writes files, or renders media, and with ~100 siblings (video_workflow_plan, video_rescue_plan, video_trim, video_export) there is no differentiation at all.
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 indication of when to choose this tool over video_workflow_plan, video_rescue_plan, video_generative_plan or the many render/export siblings. No prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions are stated, so the agent must guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.