fcp_share_export

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

Adds genuinely non-schema information: rendering happens in the background and the call returns as soon as the export starts, so agents know not to expect a finished file. However, annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and the description never explains the destruction surface (existing files at output_path, the overwrite flag) or failure modes, which is the highest-value context for a mutating tool.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the async caveat immediately after; nothing is padded. It could be slightly more efficient by merging the File > Share menu path repetition, but the structure serves the reader.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully clarifies the return semantics (returns once the export has started). Still missing for a destructive, 4-parameter tool: what overwrite does, what focus_timeline controls, and whether the export is safe to call when a destination isn't installed.

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 only 50%: destination and output_path are documented in-schema, while overwrite and focus_timeline have no description anywhere. The phrase 'using that destination's current settings' adds real meaning by telling the agent encoding settings come from the destination rather than parameters, but overwrite (the destructive switch) and focus_timeline remain unexplained.

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 and resource: render the open timeline via File > Share using the destination's current settings. An agent can distinguish it from fcp_export_xml (XML interchange) by the 'Share destination render' framing, though it never explicitly names that sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over fcp_export_xml or fcp_save_dialog, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. whether FCP must be running, whether a timeline must be focused). The only usable signal is the async note, which is about behavior rather than tool selection.

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