Plan subject and camera analysis, reframing, or stabilization for video edits with defined crop budgets before committing changes.
Plan subject/camera analysis, reframing, or stabilization with crop budgets.
| 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions planning but does not describe side effects, permissions, output format, or how the plan is used. The overwrite parameter's effect is only in the schema, not the description, leaving significant gaps for a mutation-adjacent planning 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but it effectively conveys the core idea.
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?
Given the nested request object and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse to guide an agent on how to construct the request. It does not explain what the plan contains or how to specify the desired transforms, making it inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
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 50%, but the sole documented parameter (overwrite) is trivial, while the required 'request' object is completely opaque with no properties or description. The tool description hints at content (subject/camera analysis, reframing, stabilization, crop budgets) but fails to specify the structure or required fields of the request, adding minimal semantic value.
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 clearly states a planning operation for specific visual transforms (subject/camera analysis, reframing, stabilization) with crop budgets, distinguishing it from execution siblings like video_stabilize. However, it does not differentiate itself from other planning tools (e.g., video_rescue_plan, video_composition_plan), so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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 'with crop budgets' implies the tool is used for constrained reframing or stabilization planning, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.