Set the label color of a Premiere Pro project item using its node ID and a color name or number.
Set the label color of a project item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | Yes | violet, iris, caribbean, lavender, cerulean, forest, rose, mango, purple, blue, teal, magenta, tan, green, brown, yellow (or 0-15) | |
| nodeId | Yes | Project item nodeId (from get_project_items / find_project_items) |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, side effects, or what setting a label color affects beyond the basic mutation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple setter tool.
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 low-complexity setter with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the lack of any behavioral or safety context around the mutation.
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%, and the schema already documents both nodeId and color, including the accepted color names and numeric range. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: setting the label color of a project item. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool, likely because no sibling directly sets label colors.
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?
Usage is only implied by the action itself. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.