fcpxml_check_media_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'verify... exist on disk' but does not describe side effects (none expected), error handling, or what happens when media is missing. The existence of an output schema is noted but not detailed, leaving behavior unclear.

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: one sentence for purpose and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it lacks details on the output format and how results are presented, which would aid an agent in understanding the return value structure.

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?

The description adds some value beyond the schema by explaining the path parameter as 'Path to .fcpxml file.' However, with 0% schema description coverage, it only minimally compensates; no constraints, format, or examples are given.

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 tool's purpose: 'Verify all referenced media files exist on disk.' It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('media files'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fcpxml_check_audio_levels or fcpxml_validate by focusing on media file existence.

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 like fcpxml_validate or fcpxml_qc_report. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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