Cut a segment from a multitrack timeline and reinsert it at a new time, shifting subsequent clips (ripple move).
Cut a timeline segment and reinsert it at a new time (ripple move).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| insert_at | Yes | ||
| source_end | Yes | ||
| project_path | No | ||
| source_start | Yes |
| 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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "source_start",
- "source_end",
- "insert_at"
-]New value: +[
+ "source_start",
+ "source_end",
+ "insert_at"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'ripple' usefully signals that subsequent material shifts, but it says nothing about whether the source range is left as a gap or closed, whether audio/video or clip boundaries are preserved, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens to material already at insert_at.
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 zero filler; the parenthetical adds the one piece of clarifying vocabulary an agent needs. Nothing to trim.
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 output schema relieves the description of return-value detail, but for a four-parameter editing mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, key facts are missing: time units, ripple/gap behavior, and how this differs from move_clips_tool or a cut-and-paste sequence.
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%, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It implies a source range and a destination time, yet gives no units (samples, seconds, frames?), no boundary conventions for source_start/source_end, and no guidance on the optional project_path.
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 concrete verb pair (cut and reinsert) on a specific resource (timeline segment) and clarifies the ripple semantics in parentheses. It is distinguishable from copy_segment_tool/paste_segment_tool, though it never names the closest sibling, move_clips_tool, which also moves timeline material.
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, no precondition (e.g. selection or project state needed), and no mention of alternatives such as move_clips_tool or cut_time_range_tool plus paste. The agent must infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.