fcpxml_add_keyword

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation modifies the input file in-place or creates a new file, what happens if the keyword already exists, or any side effects. The output_path parameter hints at output but is not explained. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean list of parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every line serves a clear purpose.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and that an output schema exists, the description should provide sufficient behavioral context. However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, and the nature of the output. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely use the tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the parameter descriptions in the tool description (e.g., 'Start time in FCPXML format', 'Duration of keyword range (optional)') add necessary meaning. However, several parameters lack detailed format or constraints, such as output_path default or value limitations. The description is functional but not rich.

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 tool's purpose as 'Add a keyword to a clip.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools that add markers, audio, transitions, etc., but does not explicitly highlight these differences.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to add a marker vs. a keyword. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.

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