Reconnect offline or moved media in Premiere Pro by pointing a project item to its new absolute file path. Fix missing footage links without rebuilding the edit.
Relinks an offline or moved media file to a new file path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newFilePath | Yes | The new absolute file path to relink to | |
| projectItemId | Yes | The ID of the project item to relink |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0-ibintec.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'offline or moved media file' but does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the operation modifies project metadata permanently, requires certain permissions, or if it can affect multiple clips. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.
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 a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. However, it could benefit from a bit more context without losing brevity.
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 tool with only two required parameters and a high schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. However, since there are no annotations or output schema, the description could have explained what the operation does in terms of return values or success/failure behavior. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not exceptional.
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 schema already documents both parameters. The description itself does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it just says 'Relinks... to a new file path,' which aligns with the parameter names and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Relinks' and the resource 'offline or moved media file' to a new file path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'refresh_media' and 'link_selection' by specifying the action of relinking to a new path, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies usage when a media file is offline or moved, providing context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'refresh_media' or 'check_offline_media' for handling offline media, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.