Saves the active Premiere Pro project to its current location or a specified path, and optionally creates a timestamped backup copy in a Backups folder.
Premiere Pro: save the project (or Save As path); backup:true also writes a timestamped copy into a "Backups" folder next to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| backup | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that backup:true writes a timestamped copy into a 'Backups' folder beside the project, and that a path argument switches the tool to Save As semantics. It stops short of saying what happens to the current file versus the new one.
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 dense sentence front-loaded with the tool's core action, with secondary behavior (backup) trailing. No filler, though the parenthetical '(or Save As path)' reads slightly ambiguously against the separate path parameter.
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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers both parameters and the notable side effect, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining ambiguity is what saving without a path does to the existing project file.
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 must carry both parameters, and it does: path is identified as the Save As target and backup is given concrete behavior. Minor gap: the schema lists no required params, but the description never says what happens when path is omitted.
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 (save) and resource (the Premiere Pro project), and clarifies that an optional path turns it into a Save As. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling pr_exportProjectFile, so an agent must infer the difference, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description rather than stated: no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as pr_exportProjectFile or pr_export. The one conditional it does explain (backup:true) is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.