fcp_export_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the underlying mechanism (drives File > Export XML…) and the side effect of opening the exported file, plus the timeline prerequisite. It omits where the file is written by default, overwrite behavior, and what happens if no project is open.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action comes first and the prerequisite last. Minor awkwardness in 'then open it for editing' but nothing 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?

Adequate for a two-parameter tool with no output schema: action, mechanism, and prerequisite are covered. Still missing default save location/filename semantics and failure behavior when no project is open, which an agent would need to call it reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies the open-after behavior ('then open it for editing') but never states that this is controlled by the open_after parameter or defaulted to true, and 'filename' is entirely unexplained (default name/path unknown).

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 (export) + resource (the project currently open in the FCP timeline) + output format (FCPXML). An agent can distinguish this from fcp_import_xml and send_to_final_cut by direction of data flow, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

States one real prerequisite ('The user should have the project open in the timeline first'), which is genuinely useful pre-call guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives like send_to_final_cut, fcp_menu, or save_timeline.

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