add_title

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. It never says whether FCP must already be running, whether the title is created on the open timeline, what happens to existing titles, or whether the operation is undoable. It adds only format hints (hex/name color, pixel offset), which are parameter detail rather than behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by concrete parameter hints, with no filler. The formatting is slightly cramped and the color/offset notes sit awkwardly without bullets, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A 10-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema needs substantially more description than two sentences. An agent lacks the required-parameter callout (text and time), the meaning of time/duration/duration units, and any behavioral context about the Final Cut host state.

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 description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it explains only color and y_offset. Key inputs like text, time, duration, lane, alignment, font, size and bold get no meaning, units, or format from either source — for instance 'time' is a bare string with no expected format.

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 conveys that this creates a Basic Title overlaid on the storyline, which is a specific resource, but the verb "Connect" is imprecise for a creation operation. It also never distinguishes itself from the sibling edit_title, so an agent cannot tell from the text which one to reach for on a given request.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to edit_title, remove_markers-adjacent title flows, or prerequisites such as Final Cut being open. The only implicit signal is the placement example ('-380 for a lower third'), which is positional, not usage-scoping.

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