Video & Audio Editing MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the core behavior (burning subtitles onto video) and mentions optional styling, but lacks details about permissions, file format requirements, error conditions, or performance characteristics like processing time.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some details like the extensive font_style examples could be more concise, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about inputs and the basic return value. It covers the main functionality well but could benefit from more behavioral context about error handling or performance expectations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed documentation for all parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, provides formatting examples for the complex font_style dictionary, and documents default behavior when font_style is None.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Burns subtitles') and resource ('from an SRT file onto a video'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_text_overlay' by specifying it works with SRT subtitle files rather than general text overlays.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'add_text_overlay' available, there's no indication of when subtitle burning is preferred over text overlay, nor any prerequisites or constraints mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.