Apply an audio crossfade between two adjacent clips on a specified track, choosing constant gain, constant power, or exponential fade type.
Apply an audio crossfade between two adjacent clips
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Crossfade type (default: constant_power) | |
| duration | No | Crossfade duration in seconds | |
| clipIndex | Yes | Index of the first clip (crossfade goes between this and next) | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Audio track index |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the operation is destructive, what happens if a crossfade or transition already exists, whether clip in/out points or durations are modified, or what the response is.
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. It is efficiently written, though the terseness leaves little room for the behavioral context a mutation tool needs.
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?
A timeline-mutating audio operation with no annotations and no output schema needs more than one sentence. Missing are the effects on existing transitions, whether the operation is reversible or undoable, and any indication of what is returned on success.
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 100%, so the enum of fade types, durations and both indices are already fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'between two adjacent clips' reinforces that clipIndex refers to the first clip, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 (apply), resource (audio crossfade) and scope (between two adjacent clips), which separates it from apply_transition and apply_effect in the sibling list. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of 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?
'Between two adjacent clips' implicitly states the precondition that the clips must be adjacent, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to use this versus apply_transition or set_clip_in_out, nor when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.