Adjust zoom, pan, opacity, or rotation on a specific Video Track 1 clip to fine-tune framing and composition.
Performs micro-framing on a specific clip on Video Track 1 (1-based index).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zoom | No | ||
| pan_x | No | ||
| pan_y | No | ||
| opacity | No | ||
| rotation | No | ||
| clip_index | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it can be undone, whether it affects only the clip or the timeline, or what side effects it may have on the project.
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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words or filler. It is appropriately brief for its level of abstraction.
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 description is extremely minimal. It omits output/return behavior, parameter meaning, effect details, error handling, and any operational context needed to confidently invoke or interpret the result.
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?
The description does not explain any parameter semantics. The schema only provides names like zoom, pan_x, pan_y, opacity, rotation, and clip_index, leaving their units, ranges, effect directions, and mutual dependencies entirely unspecified.
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 identifies the target (clip on Video Track 1, 1-based index) and the action (performs micro-framing), but the term 'micro-framing' is vague and does not explicitly state what is adjusted (e.g., zoom, pan, opacity, rotation) even though the schema suggests those fields.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as davinci_apply_lut, davinci_build_beat_synced_reel, or davinci_transport. There is no mention of intended workflow, limitations, or prerequisites beyond the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.