Create a short clip from source material by specifying a topic. Use optional duration and index directory to control output for targeted video editing.
Create a short clip from source material matching a topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | ||
| duration | No | ||
| index_dir | 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 only states 'Create a short clip', implying a mutation, but gives no details on side effects, whether it modifies an existing project, whether it exports files, or what the return value is. The agent is left guessing about the tool's impact and requirements.
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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, so it is concise but under-specified.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what source material is, how topic is used, what duration does, and what index_dir refers to. An agent cannot call this tool correctly without external knowledge.
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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions 'matching a topic', which partially hints at the topic parameter, but it does not describe duration or index_dir at all. The agent has no idea what these parameters mean or how they affect the output.
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 clear action (Create), resource (short clip), and context (from source material matching a topic). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like reframe_to or sync_cuts_to_beat, which focus on different operations. However, it does not clarify what 'short' means (duration? format?) or how topic is matched, so it is not maximally precise.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools. An agent has to infer that it is for automated short creation, but there is no explicit indication of when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.