fcpxml_auto_rough_cut

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

Description explains the tool's behavior (trims clips, adds transitions) but lacks details on side effects, such as whether it overwrites existing files or the state of Final Cut Pro. With no annotations, the burden is on the description, which is adequate 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?

Description is front-loaded with the purpose sentence and lists parameters concisely. Every sentence adds value, though the docstring format is slightly verbose.

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 and an output schema, the description covers main behavior and parameter semantics. However, it omits potential errors, output details, or prerequisites like Final Cut Pro running.

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%, but the description explains all 6 parameters, including the JSON format for clips_json and default values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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?

Description clearly states the tool auto-assembles clips into a rough cut timeline, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from many sibling fcpxml tools that perform different operations like creating timelines or adding markers.

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?

Description implies usage for automatic rough cut assembly but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use or comparisons to siblings like fcpxml_create_timeline or fcpxml_generate_montage.

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