Plan timeline edits as a reviewable EDL and diff before applying changes, so you can validate cuts and replacements first.
Plan explicit or ordinary-person timeline edits as a reviewable EDL and diff.
| 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 usefully indicates that the result is a reviewable EDL and diff, suggesting a non-destructive planning step, but it does not explain side effects, file-writing behavior, overwrite semantics, or whether any edits are actually applied.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, for a complex planning tool with a nested required request object, this level of brevity becomes under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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 tool has a nested request object, an overwrite flag, no annotations, and only 50% schema description coverage, so the description should provide more context. It names the output artifacts but omits the request shape, use case boundaries, and safety behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill.
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?
The required request object is completely opaque in the schema, and the description gives no indication of what edit specification or fields belong in it. The only parameter with schema documentation, overwrite, is not mentioned in the description, so the description adds essentially no parameter meaning.
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 planning action for timeline edits and identifies the output artifacts as an EDL and diff. However, the phrase "explicit or ordinary-person timeline edits" is ambiguous, and the description does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as video_edit, video_trim, video_composition_plan, or video_semantic_timeline.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies it is a planning tool but leaves the agent to infer the selection conditions from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.