fcpxml_add_markers

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only but non-destructive write, and the description's 'save a new file' is consistent with destructiveHint=false and adds the useful detail that the source XML is not overwritten. However, it says nothing about whether Final Cut Pro must be running, what happens when import_into_fcp creates a duplicate project, or about failure modes on invalid timecode.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Efficient, though the terse single clause leaves no room to front-load the non-obvious 'new file' semantics before the object.

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 six-parameter, file-transforming tool with no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description covers the core action but omits the file-based workflow context (source XML in, new XML out, optional re-import into FCP) that an agent needs to chain it correctly after an export.

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 83%, so titles, defaults and descriptions already document path, library, output_path, project_name, and the MarkerSpec fields. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it does not even mention that markers is a list accepting mixed kinds or how 'at' is interpreted within the project timeline.

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?

Specific verb (add) plus resource (markers/to-dos/chapter markers) and the object it mutates (a project in an FCPXML file), plus the key outcome 'save a new file'. It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with sibling file-level tools such as fcpxml_build_timeline or fcpxml_import.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the schema that the input comes from fcp_export_xml and must guess whether to use this versus fcpxml_build_timeline or fcpxml_import.

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