apply_template

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions generating FCPXML but does not disclose whether the timeline is modified, if the output overwrites existing files, or if any other side effects occur. The behavioral description is minimal.

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 sentence that conveys the core action and output. It is front-loaded ('Fill') and efficient, though it could include more detail without being verbose.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the presence of nested objects (clips), the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., template existence), output format details, or whether the timeline is modified. More context is needed for an agent to use it 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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds examples for template_name and hints at the structure of clips, but these are already evident from the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 clearly states the action 'fill' and the resource 'timeline template', and mentions the output 'generate FCPXML'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on template application, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_templates' or similar template-related tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auto_rough_cut' or 'generate_montage'. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., template must exist via 'list_templates') or context for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.