Modify a sequence marker in an Adobe Premiere Pro timeline by index, including its name, color, start time, comment, or duration.
Change a sequence marker
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| index | Yes | Marker index from get_markers | |
| start | No | Move it to this time (seconds) | |
| comment | No | ||
| duration | No |
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 burden and discloses almost nothing. It signals mutation of an existing marker but says nothing about whether it is a partial update, whether unspecified fields are preserved, what happens on an invalid index, or what is returned.
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?
It's a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But at four words it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it earns a middling score.
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?
A six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs far more: the update semantics, the index provenance, and the effect of each optional field. The description supplies none of that.
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 only 33% (only index and start are documented), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Name, color, comment, and duration are undocumented in both places, 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?
"Change a sequence marker" names a verb (change) and resource (sequence marker), and the word "sequence" does distinguish it from the sibling clip-marker tools. But "change" is vague about what kind of change (rename, recolor, move, retime), so an agent gets only a broad sense of the operation.
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 guidance on when to use this versus add_marker, remove_marker, clear_markers, or the clip-marker equivalents. It also doesn't tell the agent that the marker must first be located via get_markers, which is the only path to the required index.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.