export_final_cut_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. It says nothing about whether the exported file overwrites an existing file at outputPath, whether permissions or an active sequence are required, whether the operation is non-destructive, or what is returned on success/failure.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter export, though it could have spent a few extra words on disambiguation from the other export siblings at no real cost.

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 simple one-parameter export with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, it omits the return behavior and file-overwrite semantics that an agent needs to call it safely, which is noticeable given there are no annotations to compensate.

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 100% and the single parameter includes a clear description ('Full output file path (.xml)'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further meaning about path conventions, overwrite behavior, or extension handling, so the baseline 3 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 ('Export'), a specific source object ('the active sequence'), and the target format ('Final Cut Pro XML'). It is distinguishable from siblings like export_aaf or export_edl only by the named format, not by any explicit contrast, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over export_sequence, export_aaf, export_omf, export_edl, or export_direct, all of which sit in the same sibling cluster. The only implied condition is that an active sequence must exist, which the agent must infer from the phrase 'the active sequence'.

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