fcpxml_delete_clips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool modifies the file in-place, what happens if a clip name is not found, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not described here.

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, using only a brief docstring format with clear parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 the description covers the basic action and parameters, it omits details about output format, error handling, and whether the tool creates a new file or overwrites. Given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description could still benefit from clarifying the output file behavior.

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 meaningful semantics to all three parameters beyond the schema titles: path is to a .fcpxml file, clip_names_json is a JSON array of clip names, and output_path is the output file path. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 removes clips from an FCPXML timeline by name, which is specific and distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other fcpxml tools like reorder or split, but given the action 'delete', it's unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fcpxml_reorder_clips or fcpxml_trim_clip. No prerequisites, limitations, or edge cases mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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