fcpxml_check_safe_zones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'check' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how results are returned, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced. Behavioral details are minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every word adds value; 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?

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description lacks context about what 'safe zones' entails, what types of transforms are checked, or how results are presented. For a checking tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a meaningful explanation for the 'path' parameter ('Path to .fcpxml file'), which is absent in the schema. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though no other parameter details are offered.

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 checks clips for transforms that may push content outside safe zones, specifying both the action ('check') and the resource ('clips in .fcpxml file'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'fcpxml_check_audio_levels' and 'fcpxml_check_duration'.

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 alternatives (e.g., other fcpxml_check_* tools). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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