import_fcp_xml

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it creates a new sequence, requests UI suppression, and may reject malformed/unsupported XML. It also clarifies the version limitation versus FCPXML 1.x, covering failure modes and usage expectations without needing annotation support.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences deliver maximum value: the action, side effect, UI behavior, failure mode, and format warning. No word is wasted, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter import tool with no output schema, this description is comprehensive. It answers 'what, what happens, what could go wrong, and what format to provide,' covering the behavioral contract completely despite the tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a description that already mentions 'FCP7 XML file'. The description adds minimal extra parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the legacy format, so it rightly stays at the baseline of 3.

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 ('Imports a Final Cut Pro 7 XML (XMEML) file into the current project'), the resource, and the key side effect ('Premiere creates a new sequence with the cuts/clips defined in the XML'). It differentiates from siblings like export_as_fcp_xml by implying the import direction and explicitly distinguishing FCP7 XML from FCPXML 1.x.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for legacy FCP7 XML imports) and the caveat about malformed XML, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools like import_edl or import_media. The guidance 'Use legacy FCP7 XML, not modern FCPXML 1.x' is more about input format than tool selection, so it falls just short of a 5.

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