Move Premiere Pro project items into a bin, then optionally rename them or assign a color label to organize large projects and keep assets grouped.
Premiere Pro: move project items (names/paths) into a bin; also rename or set a color label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bin | No | ||
| items | Yes | ||
| rename | No | ||
| colorLabel | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation-but-not-destructive profile is covered. The description adds that the tool overloads three operations (move, rename, color label), which is useful, but it does not say whether rename/colorLabel apply to a single item or all passed items, nor what happens if the bin is missing.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with app prefix, primary operation first, and secondary operations after a semicolon. Efficient, though the overloaded purpose in one clause is slightly dense.
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?
No output schema and no annotations detail to lean on, so the description should close more gaps than it does. It names all four parameters and their rough intent, but omits multi-item behavior, bin-existence requirements, and color label value ranges.
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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does partially compensate by glossing 'items' as names/paths and naming bin, rename, and colorLabel. It still leaves key semantics open: which item 'rename' targets when multiple items are supplied, and what valid integer values colorLabel accepts.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('move project items into a bin') with the app scope (Premiere Pro) and mentions the two secondary operations (rename, color label). It does not distinguish the tool from close siblings like pr_moveClip or pr_createBin, so an agent must infer that this acts on project-panel items rather than timeline clips.
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 indication of when to use this versus pr_moveClip (timeline clips), pr_createBin (bin creation), or pr_getProjectState (to resolve item names/paths). No prerequisites such as whether the target bin must already exist or whether the bin parameter is optional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.