fcp_launch

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does usefully disclose idempotent-style behavior ('or bring it to the front'), telling the agent it is safe to call on an already-running app. It omits whether the call blocks until the app is ready, what error surfaces if Final Cut Pro is not installed, or whether any permissions are required.

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 short sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the fallback behavior in parentheses. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 zero-parameter, no-output launcher this is nearly complete — no return values need describing. The only real omission given the absence of annotations is readiness/blocking behavior after the launch call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema already shows; baseline 4 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 ('Open') and resource ('Final Cut Pro'), with a parenthetical clarifying the bring-to-front case. An agent can immediately tell this launches the app rather than inspecting it (unlike fcp_status), 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the prerequisite call before timeline/app operations. There is no explicit 'call this first' instruction, no mention of what to do if launch fails, and no reference to fcp_status as a way to check whether it is already running.

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