fcpxml_add_transition

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention whether the tool modifies the input file (output_path behavior), what happens to existing transitions, or any side effects like file system changes. The description lacks depth for a mutating 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 short and includes a clear action sentence followed by a compact argument list. It front-loads the primary function. However, it could be trimmed further by removing redundant parameter descriptions that match the schema titles.

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 the tool modifies an fcpxml file, the description lacks critical context: what the return value is (though an output schema exists), error conditions, behavior when output_path is empty, and how the transition is applied (e.g., overwriting or inserting alongside existing transitions). The description is minimal for the complexity of the operation.

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?

Although the schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), the description lists parameters with brief explanations: path (Path to .fcpxml file), after_clip_name (Name of the clip to add transition after), duration (with default in seconds), name (transition name), output_path (Output file path). This adds meaning but omits format details for duration (e.g., expected timecode format) and does not clarify defaults beyond a single example.

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 'Insert a transition after a clip', specifying the action and the resource. The parameter 'after_clip_name' reinforces the purpose. Although there is a sibling tool 'fcpxml_batch_apply_transition', this tool's focus on a single clip is evident from its name and required parameter.

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 the batch transition tool or other related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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