fcp_shortcut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully notes that the shortcut acts on whatever is selected in FCP, but it does not disclose side effects, whether destructive actions are undoable, whether FCP must be running or focused, permissions needs, or error behavior for shortcut invocation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then the two input modes. The action list is long but directly useful for invocation, and the final sentence about selection scope adds important context without excessive verbosity.

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 three-optional-parameter shortcut tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter usage reasonably well. However, it omits important context such as whether Final Cut Pro must already be running/focused, how conflicts between `action` and `key` are resolved, and what kind of response or failure an agent should expect.

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, and it largely does. It explains that `action` takes named shortcuts with many concrete examples, and that `key` with `modifiers` provides raw shortcut input using command/option/control/shift. It does not fully specify key format, modifier casing, or precedence if both `action` and `key` are supplied.

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 states a specific verb and resource: press a Final Cut Pro shortcut in the app. It also gives concrete action examples and explains the raw key/modifier path, so the tool is distinguishable from generic menu or dedicated edit tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like fcp_menu, undo, redo, or split_clip.

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 description explains the two invocation modes, named action or raw key plus modifiers, but does not say when to choose this tool over siblings such as fcp_menu, undo, redo, split_clip, or other dedicated editing tools. It also gives no exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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