Set source in/out points on a project item to control which portion of a clip the next insert or overwrite edit uses.
Set source in/out points on a project item (used by the next insert/overwrite)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | Project item nodeId (from get_project_items / find_project_items) | |
| inPoint | No | In point, seconds | |
| outPoint | No | Out point, seconds |
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 burden. It does disclose the one genuinely non-obvious trait: this mutates state consumed by the next insert/overwrite. It does not say whether the setting persists after that edit, whether it is destructive to prior in/out values, or what happens when only one of inPoint/outPoint is supplied.
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 the resource, the action, and the consequence; nothing is wasted and the key qualifier is in the first clause.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the downstream effect but leaves the state lifecycle and the relationship to clear_project_item_in_out / set_sequence_in_out unexplained, which is what an agent most needs to choose correctly.
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% — nodeId sourcing, and seconds as the unit for inPoint/outPoint are all documented there. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?
Specific verb and resource: setting source in/out points on a project item, with the scope ('project item') distinguishing it from the sequence-level sibling set_sequence_in_out. The parenthetical adds the downstream effect, though it doesn't name clear_project_item_in_out as the reset counterpart.
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?
The parenthetical '(used by the next insert/overwrite)' implies the moment to call it (immediately before an edit operation), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of clear_project_item_in_out for resetting, and no note on prerequisites such as the item being selected or open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.