fcpxml_batch_add_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains input parameters and default output behavior, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file modification), error handling, or permission requirements.

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 very concise: a single introductory sentence followed by a clearly formatted Args block. Every sentence is necessary and no redundancy.

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's complexity (3 parameters, batch operation) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description adequately explains inputs and default behavior. It lacks error handling info but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 adds meaning by specifying that 'path' is to a .fcpxml file, 'markers_json' is a JSON array with documented fields, and 'output_path' defaults to adding '_modified'. However, it does not explain the format of 'start' and 'value' strings.

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 multiple markers at once.' This specifies the verb (add), resource (multiple markers), and distinguishes from the sibling tool fcpxml_add_marker which handles single 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?

The description implies batch usage via 'at once' and the Args section details required parameters, but it does not explicitly exclude single-marker scenarios or mention alternatives like fcpxml_add_marker.

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