Configure a project item's audio channel mapping as mono, stereo, 5.1, or adaptive to ensure correct audio routing for editing and export in Premiere Pro.
Set the audio channel mapping for a project item (mono, stereo, 5.1, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The nodeId of the project item | |
| channelType | Yes | Channel mapping type |
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, yet it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether unsupported channel types on a given clip error out, or what happens to existing clip audio. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantive gap.
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 efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing usage and behavioral context.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required params, flat schema, no output schema) so the description is minimally viable, but with no annotations it should explain the mutation's preconditions and side effects. Return-value explanation is not needed since no output schema exists, keeping this at an adequate rather than a strong level.
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% and the enum already lists mono/stereo/5.1/adaptive, so the description's parenthetical adds nothing new. It also leaves 'nodeId' opaque (which identifier namespace, how to obtain it); baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Set') and resource ('audio channel mapping for a project item'), and the parenthetical enumerates the possible mappings. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling get_audio_channel_mapping by the verb alone, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_audio_channel_mapping, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the item must already be in a sequence), and no note about inspecting the current mapping first. The agent must infer all of this from the verb 'set'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.