Statonic MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates and saves changes, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects. The mention of 'partial update' in the schema is not reinforced in the description, leaving behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized lists of properties. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential details without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers what properties can be updated but omits critical context like return values, error conditions, or dependencies on tools like 'read_project' for the 'id' parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by detailing the semantics of 'patch' parameter properties (e.g., clipX, text, startUs), explaining their ranges and units, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Key/value pairs' description.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Update one or more properties of an existing segment (video or text) and save.' It specifies the resource (segment), the action (update properties), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_text_segment' (creation) and 'delete_segment' (deletion).

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?

The description provides clear context for usage by listing writable properties for video and text segments, and it mentions an alternative tool ('add_zoom_keyframes') for scaleKeyframes. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to all relevant siblings like 'create_variations' or 'use_template'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.