Sets an override pixel aspect ratio for a Premiere Pro clip or sequence, correcting stretched or squeezed media caused by incorrect pixel aspect metadata.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: set override pixel aspect ratio.
| 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?
No annotations exist. The description does not disclose side effects or technical requirements; the operation simply assert that it changes a setting, but no clues as to whether it requires the project, or whether it is reversible.
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?
Very concise, one sentence, but has a filler 'expanded operation' and 'Premiere Pro'— not harmful. It's efficient.
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 is a simple setter with no output schema; but the input schema implies key/value metadata without description. There are no details about where override can be used, pixel aspect ratio? clip? H mm. The compression/depth is not enough.
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?
Zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%; however, the schema with propertyNames is weird because there are no positional parameters, and it accepts arbitrary additionalProperties. The description offers no explanation for that apparent schema shape. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.
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 has a specific verb+object ('set override pixel aspect ratio') and is contextually distinct; however it lacks the target context (clip/sequence/project).
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 vs alternatives; no exclusions or alternatives listed; the phrase 'expanded operation' is unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.