Removes an effect from a Premiere Pro clip by name, enabling cleanup or adjustment of applied effects without manually locating them.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: remove effect by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove effect by name' doesn't explain whether this is destructive, applies to one effect or all with the same name, requires a selected clip, or works on the current sequence. This is minimal for a mutating operation.
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 one short sentence and gets to the point quickly. However, the leading 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' is boilerplate that adds no value and wastes 5 words—arguably padding that could be cut for greater clarity.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool, the missing piece is how the 'name' is provided—workspace selection, active item, current selection? This is a meaningful gap that could confuse an agent. There's no mention of how this relates to 'remove_effect' or what happens with duplicate effect names. The tool is under-specified for its apparent capability.
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?
This is a zero-parameter tool, so the rubric sets a baseline of 4. Description isn't required to explain parameter details since there are none, and the name-based selection implies the effect name comes from context/state rather than parameters.
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 the operation ('remove effect') and adds the key differentiator 'by name,' which distinguishes it from siblings like 'remove_effect' and 'remove_all_effects.' The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is vague filler but doesn't obscure purpose.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. the sibling tools 'remove_effect' or 'remove_all_effects.' The choice between these is left entirely to inference from the name, with no mention of scoping (selected clip, current sequence) or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.