push_to_fcp

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It covers key behaviors: launches FCP if needed, triggers permission prompt on first use, creates or targets libraries, and explains the modal picker scenario. It does not mention error handling or state modifications, but the core transparency is strong.

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 two sentences with front-loaded key information ('LIVE:...'), no redundant phrases, and every clause adds essential context. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers usage constraints (macOS, permissions), parameter behavior (library auto-creation), and launch process. It could mention what to expect on failure or if the import results in any confirmation, but it is largely complete.

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 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds value by explaining the practical effect of library_location (auto-creation vs. modal picker) and the zero-click requirement, which goes beyond the schema's type/purpose descriptions.

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 explicitly states the action: send an FCPXML file into running Final Cut Pro with zero clicks. It details the mechanism (Open Document Apple event), library creation, and launch behavior, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on already-imported content.

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 description provides specific guidance: for true zero-click, pass library_location ending in .fcpbundle; omitting it causes a modal picker. It also notes macOS-only and first-use permission prompt. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, though the tool's uniqueness reduces the need.

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