fcp_menu_click

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

The sentence "Acts on the current selection, like a person clicking it" is genuinely useful behavioral context: it makes clear that the tool does not target a specific item and that its effect depends on the existing selection. However, with destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds no warning about which actions may be irreversible, and it does not mention focus or authentication requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the behavioral analogy. Every phrase carries information.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, this is mostly adequate: the selections semantics are covered. Missing are the link to fcp_menu_list for discovering valid paths and any warning tied to its destructive classification, which matters for a UI-automation click.

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%, and the schema already documents the menu-path array with concrete examples such as ["File", "New", "Project"] and the optional "..." segment. The description adds nothing about path construction, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Click a Final Cut Pro menu item"), which tells an agent exactly what the tool does and distinguishes it implicitly from sibling tools that read state or press keys. It stops short of naming the closest alternative, fcp_menu_list, so the boundary is not fully sharp.

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 never states when to reach for this tool instead of fcp_press_keys, fcp_click_button, or fcp_menu_list, nor that the menu path normally comes from fcp_menu_list. It says nothing about preconditions, such as Final Cut Pro being launched or focused.

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