Renames a clip on an Adobe Premiere Pro timeline by specifying track type, track index, clip index, and new name, helping organize edits without manual relabeling.
Rename a clip on the timeline
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newName | Yes | New clip name | |
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | 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 implies a mutation but does not disclose permission requirements, whether linked clips are affected, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens if the clip does not exist.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is terse but appropriately so for a simple rename operation.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and the tool requires four parameters including track and clip indices. The description does not explain indexing semantics, preconditions, or return behavior, which leaves it incomplete for a timeline mutation tool.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including the video/audio enum for trackType. The description adds no indexing conventions (e.g., zero-based) or other meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Rename a clip') and scopes it to 'on the timeline,' which distinguishes it from rename_project_item and rename_track. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it falls 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_timeline_clip_label or rename_project_item, and it states no prerequisites or preconditions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'on the timeline.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.