Create a sub-clip from a source project item by defining in and out points in seconds, with optional locked boundaries.
Create a sub-clip from a project item with specific in/out points
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the sub-clip | |
| nodeId | Yes | The nodeId of the source project item | |
| inPoint | Yes | In point in seconds | |
| outPoint | Yes | Out point in seconds | |
| hardBoundaries | No | Lock sub-clip boundaries (default: true) |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic creation action and that in/out points are used, but it does not explain whether the source project item is modified, what the result is, permissions needed, or any other side effects relevant to a creation operation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness leaves behavioral gaps that a longer description could address.
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 creation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the action and key inputs, but does not describe the created object's output or side effects, leaving the agent to infer important behavior.
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 100%, so all five parameters already have documented meanings in the schema. The description reinforces the source project item and in/out point parameters but does not add syntax, constraints, or further semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a sub-clip from a project item with specific in/out points.' It is clear what the tool does and includes the source and boundary concept, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like create_subsequence or nest_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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_subsequence, create_sequence_from_clip, or nest_clips. The description only implies usage by saying it creates a sub-clip, without conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.