fcpxml_apply_template

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that placeholders are replaced and a new file is saved (via output_path), but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file overwriting, validation checks) or error behavior. Basic behavior is clear but not comprehensive.

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 one-line summary and a bulleted list for parameters. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though the Args section partially repeats schema information (which is acceptable given zero schema descriptions).

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, the description omits important context such as expected behavior when placeholders are missing, error handling, or output format details. It covers basic functionality but lacks depth for a template application 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section adds significant value by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Path to template .fcpxml file', 'JSON array of clips to insert'). However, it lacks details on expected formats or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Apply an FCPXML template') and the resource ('set of clips'), with a specific mechanism ('Replaces placeholder clips'). It distinguishes itself from many sibling fcpxml_ tools by focusing on template application.

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 implies usage (when you have a template and clips to insert) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fcpxml_create_project or fcpxml_save_template. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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