save_current_caption_templateCapture current caption styling from a project or scene and save it as a reusable template for consistent formatting across videos.
Snapshot the caption styling currently applied to a project / scene as a reusable template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Template display name. | |
| scene | No | Inline scene (alternative to project_id). | |
| project_id | No | Project to snapshot from. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the capture is of 'currently applied' styling (a point-in-time snapshot), but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, overwrite behavior, or whether a template id is returned.
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. The 'project / scene' slash construction is slightly loose, but nothing is wasted.
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 a nested 'scene' object and no output schema, the description does the minimum: it names the sources but not what a successful call yields or how the inline scene differs from project_id in practice. Adequate for a 3-parameter tool, but not more.
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 three parameters are documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The phrase 'currently applied to a project / scene' usefully clarifies that scene and project_id are alternative sources of the snapshot, but adds no format or precedence detail 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 verb 'Snapshot' plus the resource 'caption styling currently applied to a project / scene' states precisely what the tool produces. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling save_caption_template, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite save_caption_template being an obvious confusable sibling. The description implies the source is current project/scene styling, but never says when this should be chosen over save_caption_template or apply_caption_template.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.