fcp_export_xml

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-readOnly; the description adds that this is driven through a menu action in the UI, which is useful given the automation-based sibling set. However, it never explains what makes it destructive — e.g. that overwrite can clobber an existing file, or that it requires FCP to be frontmost — leaving the destructive flag unexplained.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the mechanism trailing. No wasted words, though the single-sentence form forces the when/why guidance to be inferred.

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 destructive, disk-writing UI-automation tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum flag the overwrite hazard and the FCP-foreground requirement. It covers the what and roughly the how, but leaves the risk profile under-explained.

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 75%, and the description adds real meaning for two of the four params: '(or browser selection)' explains what focus_timeline toggles between, and 'then read it' ties to read_after. Overwrite and output_path are left to the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 (Export) and resource (open timeline / browser selection as FCPXML) plus the underlying mechanism (File > Export XML). It is distinguishable from fcpxml_read (which only reads) and fcpxml_build_timeline, though it doesn't explicitly disambiguate against fcp_share_export.

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?

Implies when to use it (you need an FCPXML dump of the current timeline or browser selection) and the focus_timeline toggle hints at the timeline-vs-browser choice. But there is no explicit when-not, no mention of prerequisites (Final Cut must be running, a project open), and no routing to sibling alternatives.

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