Add crossfades at edit joins on a podcast track; use dry_run to preview changes before applying.
Add crossfades at edit joins on a track; dry_run previews without applying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| fade_ms | No | ||
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | No | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does 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 does disclose the mutation plus a non-applying preview mode, which is genuine value. It omits what happens to existing crossfades, whether fade_ms must be supplied, scope when track_id is null, and whether changes are reversible.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the preview semantics appended. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is part of why so much parameter and scoping context is missing.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and a confusable sibling, the definition does too little. Missing scope rules, fade_ms defaults, and sibling routing leave real gaps.
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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only touches dry_run. It adds no meaning for fade_ms (units/default when null), speaker, track_id, or project_path, so four of five parameters are undocumented in both places.
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: 'Add crossfades at edit joins on a track.' Clear enough to know it is a fade-application operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling fade_joins_tool or from set_clip_fade_tool, leaving the agent to guess which fade tool is the right one.
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?
'dry_run previews without applying' implies a safe preview path, which is useful implied usage. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus fade_joins_tool, set_clip_fade_tool, or recommend_fades_tool, and no prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.