Adjust the active sequence's frame size, frame rate, or render quality settings to match your project requirements.
Change frame size, frame rate or render quality of the active sequence
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| maximumBitDepth | No | ||
| maximumRenderQuality | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It never says whether changes are reversible or undoable, what happens to existing clips when fps or frame size changes, or whether the sequence must be closed/unlocked — significant gaps for a settings 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?
A single efficient sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing information rather than being tightly scoped. It is front-loaded but too thin for a 5-parameter mutation 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is the only explanatory layer and it omits how to target the sequence, the meaning of maximumBitDepth, units for fps, and the effects of the change. Not sufficient for correct invocation.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: 'frame size' maps to width/height, 'frame rate' to fps, and 'render quality' to maximumRenderQuality. The maximumBitDepth boolean is completely unmentioned, and no units, ranges, or defaults are provided for any parameter.
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 ('Change') and the resource ('settings of the active sequence') and enumerates the affected settings (frame size, frame rate, render quality). It is reasonably distinguishable from get_sequence_settings, though it doesn't acknowledge the near-sibling set_override_frame_rate.
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 guidance, no prerequisites given (e.g. that an active sequence must exist and which one gets modified), and no mention of when to use set_override_frame_rate versus this tool. Usage must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.