Star or unstar a take as the keeper in a Takes session by giving the session and take number; set keeper true to mark it or false to remove it.
Star or unstar a take as the keeper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| take | Yes | Take number. | |
| keeper | No | true stars the take as the keeper. | |
| 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 already declare this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds that both starring and unstarring are possible, but it omits the effect of omitting the optional keeper parameter and whether setting a new keeper affects any existing keeper.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the operation.
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 low-complexity tool with full schema description coverage and useful annotations, the description covers the core action. However, it leaves a practical gap around the optional keeper parameter: it does not clarify behavior when keeper is omitted, and it does not mention whether a session can have only one keeper.
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 all three parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline when coverage is this high.
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 states a specific verb pair ('Star or unstar') and resource ('a take as the keeper'), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like set_best_cut or rename_take, so an agent must infer the difference from the keeper concept.
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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent receives no help deciding between set_keeper, set_best_cut, or other take-modifying tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.