export_as_fcp_xml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply states the export action but does not reveal important behaviors such as whether existing files are overwritten, required permissions, FCP XML version compatibility, or what happens on failure. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence with the verb placed first ('Exports') and no unnecessary words. It is as concise as possible while conveying the essential action.

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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It does not mention return values, overwrite behavior, error handling, or FCP XML version details, which are relevant for an export operation. The parameter schema helps but is insufficient to fully understand the tool's context.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (sequenceId and outputPath), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Exports a sequence as Final Cut Pro XML.' The verb 'Exports' and the resource 'sequence' explicitly define the tool's purpose, and the format 'Final Cut Pro XML' distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_aaf, export_omf, and export_as_project.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of comparing with AAF/OMF exports, import functionality, or any preconditions. The only implied usage is from the format name, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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