Copy a clip to another slot, overwriting the target, to create variations of your track.
Copy a clip to another slot (overwrites the target). Good for making variations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot_index | Yes | ||
| target_slot | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes | ||
| target_track | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive trait that the target slot is overwritten, which an agent needs to know before calling. However, it says nothing about the source clip's fate, permission/auth needs, or response behavior.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and its key side effect lead. Slightly terse for the amount of undocumented behavior, but efficient.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 fully undocumented required parameters, the description covers the essential overwrite warning but omits source-clip behavior, indexing semantics, and error conditions. Adequate minimum but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 0% and all four parameters (track_index, slot_index, target_track, target_slot) have only generic titles. The description's source/destination framing loosely implies two coordinate pairs but never explains which parameter is which (e.g. slot_index vs target_slot) or the units/indexing, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (copy/duplicate) and resource (clip) plus the destination (another slot), which cleanly separates it from create_clip, delete_clip, set_clip, and duplicate_scene/duplicate_track. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting itself against those siblings.
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?
'Good for making variations' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of when this should be avoided versus e.g. create_clip or set_clip. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.