Manage a conversational video editing session to step through edits, track goals, notes, and scores, and measure quality control via input_path.
Conversational edit session. Step with input_path measures real QC (N6).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| score | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| input_path | No | ||
| step_action | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that stepping with input_path performs real QC, without saying whether the session is stateful, what actions mutate state, what "N6" means, or what persistence/auth is required.
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 short and front-loaded, but at two sentences it is under-specified rather than concise. The opaque "(N6)" token consumes space without conveying meaning an agent can act on.
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 described, but for a 7-parameter, 0%-coverage, annotation-free session tool the description leaves the core contract (what a session is, what actions do, how steps measure QC) unexplained.
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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: only input_path is referenced (and only cryptically), while action, path, step_action, goal, notes, and score are entirely unexplained.
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?
"Conversational edit session" essentially restates the tool name (video_edit_session) without saying what the session does, what gets edited, or what actions are available. It gives an agent almost no basis for distinguishing it from the many video_edit/video_* siblings.
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 clause "Step with input_path measures real QC (N6)" hints at one usage mode but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_edit, video_edit_session siblings, or video_qc_*. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.