fcpxml_add_title

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It mentions modifying a .fcpxml file but does not explain whether the original is overwritten, what happens on conflict, permission requirements, or any destructive behavior. The output file path is mentioned but not clarified (e.g., creation vs overwrite).

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 concise with a single sentence for purpose followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. Slightly more context could improve completeness without adding much length.

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 five parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (unreferenced), the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and any mention of return values or effects. The tool's output is not described, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool produces.

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 coverage is 0%, so parameter descriptions are essential. The description provides brief explanations for all five parameters (path, text, duration, position, output_path) and clarifies position's allowed values. However, details like duration format or text formatting are missing, limiting full semantic understanding.

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 'Add a title clip to the timeline', specifying the action (add), resource (title clip), and location. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fcpxml_add_audio or fcpxml_add_transition, which add different clip types.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adding other clip types or using other methods). The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or context for use.

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