fcpxml_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by specifying that validation is against the DTD bundled with the installed Final Cut Pro, which tells the agent the check is local and version-dependent rather than against a fixed online 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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the key differentiator (which DTD) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it leaves little room for the usage guidance an agent would benefit from.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits what happens on failure — whether errors are returned as messages, line numbers, or a boolean. That reporting behavior is the main thing an agent needs and would have to discover by calling.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that 'path' accepts a .fcpxml file or .fcpxmld bundle. The description adds nothing about the path beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Check an FCPXML file') plus the validation reference (the DTD bundled with the installed Final Cut Pro), which makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like fcpxml_read, fcpxml_import, and fcpxml_build_timeline. No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

Use case is implied — you'd validate before reading or importing an FCPXML — but the description never says when to call this versus fcpxml_read or fcpxml_import, nor any preconditions. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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