Create an auto-reframed copy of the active sequence at a new aspect ratio using Adobe Sensei, so footage reframes for vertical or other formats without manual keyframing.
Create an auto-reframed copy of the active sequence for another aspect ratio (Adobe Sensei)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newName | No | ||
| numerator | Yes | e.g. 9 for 9:16 | |
| denominator | Yes | e.g. 16 for 9:16 | |
| motionPreset | No | ||
| useNestedSequences | 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 the full burden. 'Create a copy' usefully signals the source sequence is preserved (non-destructive), and '(Adobe Sensei)' hints at AI-driven processing that may be slow. But it does not say whether the new sequence becomes active/selected, what 'motionPreset' or 'useNestedSequences' change behaviorally, whether timing/tracking accuracy depends on analysis, or what happens on failure.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the key scoping detail (active sequence, aspect ratio) stated first. It is arguably undersized for a five-parameter creation tool, which is the only reason it is not a 5.
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 five-parameter creation tool with 40% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: the meaning of motionPreset and useNestedSequences, whether the result is a new sequence the agent can then act on, and any prerequisite state for the active sequence.
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 only 40%: numerator/denominator already carry 'e.g. 9 for 9:16' examples, so the description's 'another aspect ratio' adds nothing new. The three undocumented parameters (newName, motionPreset, useNestedSequences) receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, so the description 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Create an auto-reframed copy of the active sequence') plus the purpose ('for another aspect ratio'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not name a sibling such as clone_sequence or create_sequence_from_clips to disambiguate, but the auto-reframe capability is distinctive enough to tell apart.
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?
'of the active sequence' implies a precondition (the sequence must be active/open) and the aspect-ratio switch implies the intent, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives like clone_sequence for a plain duplicate or set_sequence_settings for resizing an existing sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.