Add a clip to a video track by specifying asset, source in/out points, timeline position, speed, and volume. Returns a diff showing the changes made.
Place a slice of an asset on a track (returns a diff).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | ||
| speed | No | ||
| src_in | No | ||
| volume | No | ||
| src_out | No | ||
| track_id | Yes | ||
| rationale | No | ||
| timeline_in | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention that it 'returns a diff,' which is a useful behavioral note. However, it omits any indication of mutation side effects, reversibility, permissions, or impact on existing timeline data. The mention of 'diff' suggests non-destructive behavior but is not explicit.
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 one short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with eight parameters. It lacks structure, front-loading of key constraints, or any elaboration. The brevity is not appropriate given the tool's complexity; it sacrifices necessary detail for terseness.
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 tool has eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain parameter semantics, return format (beyond 'a diff'), or usage context. Given the complexity, this is severely incomplete; an agent cannot reliably know how to set src_in/src_out, speed, or rationale without further information.
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 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The schema lists eight parameters (asset, speed, src_in, src_out, volume, track_id, rationale, timeline_in) but none are described in either schema or text. The description does not clarify what 'slice' refers to or how parameters like src_in/src_out map to it, leaving the agent to guess.
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 the action ('Place'), the resource ('a slice of an asset'), and the target ('on a track'), and mentions it returns a diff. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_asset (whole asset) and add_track (track creation), though 'slice' could be more explicit about what constitutes a clip.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, when it should be preferred over add_asset or trim, or what scenarios are inappropriate. The description is purely a statement of function without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.