Generates a dry-run local repurposing manifest to preview platform-ready assets before committing changes.
Create a dry-run local repurposing manifest for platform-ready assets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. | |
| platforms | No | ||
| input_path | Yes | ||
| output_dir | No |
| 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 load; it does disclose two real behavioral traits — the run is a dry run and it operates locally (no remote/cloud side effects). It says nothing about what gets written where, whether an existing manifest is replaced, or what permissions/access are needed, which is thin for a mutation-adjacent tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing wasted. The brevity is efficient but borders on under-specification of an operation with four parameters.
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 three of four parameters are undocumented and the manifest's contents and the accepted platform vocabulary are unstated. For a tool sitting in a dense planning/execution family, the description leaves too much for the agent to guess.
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 25%; only 'overwrite' is documented in the schema. The single description sentence gives only faint hints ('platform-ready assets' gestures at platforms, 'local ... manifest' at output_dir) and says nothing about which platform strings are accepted or what input_path must point to, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a ... repurposing manifest') plus two meaningful qualifiers: 'dry-run' and 'local'. It does not name the closely related sibling video_repurpose (or video_rescue_plan), so the agent must infer that this is the planning/preview counterpart rather than the executing tool.
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?
'dry-run' implies this is a preview/planning step before an actual repurpose, which is useful implied guidance. However, no alternative is named and there is no statement of when to use video_repurpose instead, or any preconditions (does input_path need to be a local file?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.