Modify an existing timeline marker's name, color, comment, or duration by specifying its index in Adobe Premiere Pro.
Update properties of an existing marker
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New marker name | |
| color | No | New marker color | |
| comment | No | New marker comment | |
| duration | No | New marker duration in seconds | |
| markerIndex | Yes | Index of the marker to update |
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 of an existing resource but does not state permissions, reversibility, partial-update behavior, or what happens for an invalid markerIndex.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for conciseness, though the resulting lack of detail is captured under completeness.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more for a mutation tool with five parameters. It does not clarify which marker type is targeted, how partial updates are handled, or what the result looks like.
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 parameter meanings are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only the generic notion of updating properties and no additional parameter semantics.
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: updating an existing marker. It is clear at a high level but does not distinguish this tool from sibling marker tools such as add_marker, add_clip_marker, or add_project_item_marker.
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 tool versus related marker tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this applies only to already-created markers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.