Build a local, source-time semantic timeline from analyzer evidence to organize video moments for editing and search.
Build a local, source-time semantic timeline from supplied analyzer evidence.
| 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the timeline is local and source-time, but does not mention that building may create or overwrite artifacts, how the overwrite parameter affects existing media, or what permissions or side effects apply.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every phrase contributes to the purpose or input/output context.
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?
This is a complex tool with a required nested request object, no annotations, and many related siblings. Although an output schema exists, the description does not provide enough input expectations, usage routing, or mutation/overwrite context for reliable invocation.
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 critical required 'request' parameter is an opaque nested object with no description. The description only hints that it consumes supplied analyzer evidence, without explaining expected fields or structure. The overwrite parameter is documented in the schema, not in the description.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: build a semantic timeline. The modifiers 'local', 'source-time', and 'from supplied analyzer evidence' clarify the output and input context. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from timeline-adjacent siblings such as video_semantic_query or video_timeline_edit_plan.
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 phrase 'from supplied analyzer evidence' implies that analyzer evidence must already exist, but the description does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.