send_to_final_cut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful trait: the operation is non-destructive and the result lands in the same event. It omits whether Final Cut Pro must already be running, whether the app is launched/opened, and what happens on failure or name collision.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the non-destructive guarantee follows immediately.

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 file-creating mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs the description to cover inputs and preconditions, and it covers neither. The outcome is clear but the mechanics of calling it are not.

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% and both parameters are optional and undocumented. The description never mentions output_path or project_name, so an agent cannot tell where the file is written or how the new project is named.

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 and resource: save the edited timeline as a new project and import it into Final Cut Pro. This is distinguishable from save_timeline and fcp_export_project by the 'new project' + 'same event' framing, 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 implied rather than stated: the note that the original project is untouched tells the agent this is the non-destructive route, which is decision-relevant. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs save_timeline/fcp_export_project guidance and no stated prerequisites.

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