fcp_import_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the import replaces the current timeline, opens a new library/event, requires FCP to be running, or whether the import is blocking/reversible — significant gaps for a state-changing action.

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 with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it also demonstrates that brevity here comes at the cost of missing behavioral detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description does not cover prerequisites, side effects on the current project, or success/failure behavior. For a file-import action, that leaves materially important context unstated.

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?

The single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It names the file types implicitly but doesn't clarify whether path is an absolute filesystem path, whether it accepts a directory for .fcpxmld bundles, or 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?

States a specific verb (Import) and resource (.fcpxml/.fcpxmld) and adds the equivalent UI menu path, which makes the intent unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like fcp_export_project or find_fcpxml_files, but the import direction is clear enough to distinguish them.

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 'File > Import > XML' parenthetical implies this mirrors a manual FCP import, giving an implied usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus opening a timeline, or any precondition such as Final Cut Pro already running.

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