fcpxml_create_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to do so. It does not mention file overwrite behavior, required permissions, or side effects. The phrase 'empty FCPXML project file' implies creation but lacks detail on what happens to existing files.

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 clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary text, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating param descriptions from purpose).

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description provides minimal context beyond parameter names and defaults. It does not explain the return value despite having an output schema. The tool's place among siblings is unclear.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., format_name examples, output_path default), but does not fully explain each parameter's role or constraints. It adds moderate value above the schema.

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 'Create a new empty FCPXML project file,' specifying the verb 'create' and the resource 'empty FCPXML project file'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fcpxml_create_timeline that operate on timelines within projects.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like fcpxml_create_timeline, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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