Apply Ken Burns motion, color grading, and cinematic vignette by generating hardware-optimized video filtergraphs. Configure motion, grade, aspect ratio, FPS, and duration.
Generates hardware-optimized filtergraphs for Ken Burns camera motion, color balance, and cinematic vignette.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | No | ||
| motion | No | zoom_in | |
| colorGrade | No | cinematic_teal_orange | |
| aspectRatio | No | 9:16 | |
| durationSeconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies that the tool generates filtergraphs rather than applying them, which is useful, but it omits whether it returns text or a file, any side effects, authentication needs, or how the output should be consumed.
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. Every phrase contributes to identifying the tool's output domain.
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?
For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is materially incomplete. It does not explain the generated filtergraph format, how to use the result, or what each input controls.
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 it only loosely maps to motion and colorGrade via 'Ken Burns camera motion' and 'color balance'. It says nothing about fps, aspectRatio, durationSeconds, or the enum values, and it references a cinematic vignette that is not an input parameter.
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 (Generates) and resource (filtergraphs) and names the effect areas it covers, so the agent can tell it apart from create/compile siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other video-effect or keyframe siblings.
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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no alternatives are mentioned. The description only says what it produces, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be chosen over edge_compile_video or edge_generate_keyframes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.