Convert every take in a media item into its own overlapping item on the track, allowing individual editing and mixing.
Explode all takes of a media item in place (each take becomes its own overlapping item).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_index | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation destructiveHint=true already flags the destructive nature, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the 'in place' modifier and the outcome (each take becomes its own overlapping item), which clarifies that the original take structure is modified rather than creating new items. This goes beyond the annotation by describing the result.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and immediately states the effect. There is zero fluff; every word contributes meaning. It is concise without sacrificing 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 destructive action with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core behavior but omits parameter semantics. The tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive detail, but the lack of parameter explanation is a real gap. Given that annotations cover destructive behavior and the effect is described, it is minimally complete but not fully self-contained.
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 0% and the description provides no explanation for track_index or item_index. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema details. An agent cannot know whether indices are zero-based, what ranges are valid, or how they relate to the media item. This is a significant gap.
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 verb 'explode' and the resource 'all takes of a media item', with a precise outcome: each take becomes its own overlapping item. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crop_to_active_take (which keeps only the active take) or delete_take (which removes takes). The purpose is unmistakable.
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 description implies when to use it (when you want to separate takes into individual overlapping items) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like crop_to_active_take or delete_take are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the choice from context. No exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.