Create a reusable photo-editing preset from a project pipeline or explicit steps to reapply consistent edits across future projects.
Save a reusable preset from a project's pipeline or explicit steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the two sourcing modes but omits the key behavioral detail an agent needs: how name collisions are handled and what overwrite changes.
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 no filler; the verb and resource come first and the qualifying detail follows immediately.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Overwrite semantics, tags, description, and step object shape are all left for the agent to guess.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden; it only implicitly covers project_id and steps and says nothing about tags, description, or overwrite (including what overwrite=false on a name collision does). The structure of individual step objects is also unexplained.
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?
A specific verb and resource plus the two supported sources (a project's pipeline or explicit steps) make it easy to separate from list_presets, apply_preset, and delete_preset. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.
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 phrase 'project's pipeline or explicit steps' hints at two input modes, but there is no statement of when to use this versus apply_preset or save_project, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.