Rename a take so its files follow take-NN--camera.mov and take-NN--screen.mov; an empty name resets the name.
Name a take. Its files become take-NN--camera.mov / -screen.mov. Empty name resets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name. Empty resets it. | |
| take | Yes | Take number. | |
| session | Yes | Session as 'Project/folder', an absolute path, or its id (from get_session). An old path still works after a rename or move. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the concrete side effect — renaming the take's files to a specific pattern — and the reset semantics of an empty name. It stops short of covering collision handling, error cases, or whether the take must be in a particular state, keeping it below a 5.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the core action and then the consequential file-naming effect and reset behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, the main side effect, and the reset case. Remaining gaps (name collisions, required take state, or error behavior in a pipeline-oriented toolset) are minor but real.
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 would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: what the name parameter actually produces in filenames (take-NN-<name>-camera.mov / -screen.mov) and the NN numbering convention. 'Empty name resets' repeats the schema, so the added value is the rename pattern rather than a full parameter walkthrough.
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 and resource ('Name a take') and immediately names the observable effect on the take's files (take-NN-<name>-camera.mov / -screen.mov), so the agent knows exactly what this tool changes. No sibling in the list (import_take, cut_take, trash_takes, move_sessions) overlaps this rename/name operation, and the file-pattern detail makes the scope unambiguous.
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 the tool's role (naming/renaming a take) and notes that an empty name resets, but it never states when to use this versus adjacent take tools or what preconditions must hold. Usage is inferable rather than explicit, which is the definition of a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.