fcp_save_dialog

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already known, but the description adds nothing about the destructive behavior itself. Critically, the overwrite parameter — the thing that determines whether an existing file is clobbered — is never explained anywhere, and failure modes (folder must exist) appear only in the schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and ending on the confirmation step. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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 file-writing tool with no output schema, the description omits what happens on success or failure, whether the dialog is dismissed, and how overwrite changes behavior. An agent could invoke it and unknowingly overwrite an existing file.

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 67%, with button and output_path documented but overwrite left completely bare. The description's 'folder and file name' merely restates the output_path schema text and gives no meaning to overwrite or button, so it does not compensate for the 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?

The description states a specific verb chain (fill in, then confirm) against a concrete resource (Final Cut Pro's open save dialog), so an agent knows this drives a native UI dialog rather than an export API like fcp_share_export or fcp_export_xml. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the precondition that the dialog must already be open, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Final Cut Pro's open save dialog' hints the dialog must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative such as fcp_share_export or fcp_click_button. An agent must infer the prerequisite from the phrasing.

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