fcpxml_export_fcp7

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation or overwriting), error scenarios, or whether the tool performs validation. The behavior is implied but underspecified.

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 a single clear sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Every word earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded with no unnecessary information.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description covers the basic conversion function. However, it omits details on output behavior (e.g., what happens when output_path is empty), success/error indicators, and any preconditions like file validity. With an output schema present, return value explanation is less critical.

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%. The description adds minimal meaning by stating 'path: Path to .fcpxml file' and 'output_path: Output file path', which clarifies the string parameters, but lacks details on expected formats, defaults, or constraints.

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 states 'Convert FCPXML to FCP7 XML format', which is a specific verb+resource action. It clearly differentiates from sibling export tools (e.g., fcpxml_export_edl, fcpxml_export_resolve) by naming the target format.

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 mentions compatibility with Premiere Pro and Avid, hinting at when to use, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternative export tools. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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