Trim, caption, and export selected video segments as vertical short-form videos in one call.
Trim, caption, make vertical, and export selected segments in one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| style | No | ||
| segments | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. | |
| input_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and comes up short. It doesn't say that this writes/export media files, whether outputs overwrite by default, or what permissions/paths are required; 'export' hints at file creation but nothing about side effects is stated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the sequence of operations is easy to scan. It is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter composite tool, but there is no wasted text.
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?
The output schema covers return values, but for a complex 5-parameter tool with nested segment structures and zero annotations, the description leaves too much open: segment format, style semantics, output location, and overwrite behavior are all unaddressed.
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 only 20% (just the overwrite flag), so the description needs to compensate but doesn't. It never explains what 'style' controls, the expected shape of a 'segments' entry, or how output_path is used, leaving 4 of 5 parameters semantically undocumented across both description and schema.
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 names four concrete operations (trim, caption, make vertical, export) on a specific resource (selected segments), which tells an agent exactly what capability this composes. The phrase 'in one call' implicitly distinguishes it from the single-purpose siblings like video_trim, video_add_text, and video_resize, though it doesn't name 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?
The phrase 'in one call' hints that this is the combined/batch alternative to chaining individual tools, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the tradeoff between one-shot composition and granular control.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.