Remove an added effect from a clip by effect name or index to undo or clean up effects on video or audio tracks.
Remove an added effect from a clip
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| effect | Yes | Effect name (e.g. 'Motion', 'Opacity', 'Gaussian Blur') or its index from get_clip_effects | |
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index on the track, 0-based from the left (see get_timeline_clips) | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index, 0-based (V1 = 0, A1 = 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It doesn't say whether removal is undoable, what happens if the effect doesn't exist on the clip, whether it errors or no-ops, or whether removal affects keyframes on that effect. Only the implication of 'added' effect gives any behavioral signal.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Terseness is appropriate for a simple action, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the missing behavioral detail.
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 and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: post-removal state, error behavior for missing effects, and whether keyframed effects can be removed. The rich schema compensates for parameters only.
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 100%, with each parameter documented (effect name or index from get_clip_effects, clip index, track type, track index). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Remove an added effect from a clip'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like apply_effect, get_clip_effects, and remove_transition. It doesn't identify the target clip/track scope, but the action itself is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the counterpart tool (apply_effect) or prerequisite lookup (get_clip_effects). The word 'added' hints that only user-applied effects can be removed, but that's inference rather than stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.