Coordinate local video planners to generate a creative edit plan, returning a structured abstention when planning cannot proceed.
Coordinate proven local planners or return a structured abstention.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that it may 'abstain' and that it coordinates planners; it does not state whether it writes files, requires prior project state, validates inputs, or what the output contains beyond a vague 'structured abstention'. The overwrite parameter implies file mutation, but the description never mentions side effects.
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 one short sentence, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. 'Proven local planners' and 'structured abstention' are jargon that does not front-load actionable meaning for an agent.
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 complex planning tool with a nested free-form request object, no annotations, and many similar siblings, the description is grossly inadequate. The output schema is the only source of return-value detail, but an agent still cannot tell what the tool does or how to construct the request.
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%, and the undocumented parameter is a free-form nested `request` object (additionalProperties: true) with no schema description at all. The description adds no information about the request structure or what fields it expects, leaving the single required parameter completely opaque.
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 vague activity ('Coordinate proven local planners') but never says what video creative planning actually produces, what 'autopilot' means, or what resource is being planned. Against dozens of sibling planner tools (video_generative_plan, video_composition_plan, video_workflow_plan, video_timeline_edit_plan), an agent cannot distinguish this from them.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The phrase 'return a structured abstention' hints at a failure path but gives no condition for choosing this tool over the many other *plan tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.