Create a compound clip from a chosen range of clips on a video track, automatically generating a recovery timeline to preserve the original edit.
Create a compound clip from a 1-based video-track range. Creates a recovery timeline first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Compound Clip | |
| end_clip | No | ||
| start_clip | No | ||
| track_index | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect, 'Creates a recovery timeline first,' which is useful. However, it does not explain whether the operation is destructive, how the recovery timeline is used, or what happens to the original clips.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the recovery-timeline side effect earns its place as important behavioral context.
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?
Despite having an output schema, this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions. The description leaves key invocation details ambiguous, such as how to specify the range, whether the range is inclusive, and whether a valid timeline must be loaded. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without additional inference.
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 for the four undocumented parameters. It offers only the phrase '1-based video-track range,' which hints at track_index/start_clip/end_clip semantics but does not explain defaults, inclusivity, or what end_clip=0 means. This is insufficient for reliable parameter selection.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a compound clip') and the specific scope ('from a 1-based video-track range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_create_timeline or resolve_build_rough_cut, and it is not a tautology of the tool name.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any preconditions or exclusions mentioned. The agent must infer that it applies to the current timeline and that no other tool is more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.