fcpxml_export_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'convert' but does not disclose whether the original file is modified, if overwriting occurs, or any authentication/permission requirements. The behavioral traits are minimally transparent.

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?

Extremely concise: one clear sentence for purpose plus a brief structured Args section. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 (convert one file format to another) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers core functionality and parameters. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., error handling, file overwrite policy) but is sufficiently complete for a straightforward conversion tool.

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. The 'Args' section adds basic meaning ('path: Path to .fcpxml file', 'output_path: Output file path') but no details on format, constraints, or default behavior (e.g., when output_path is left empty). This adds marginal value over parameter names.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Convert FCPXML to DaVinci Resolve-compatible format (FCPXML v1.9).' It names the specific resource (FCPXML) and output format (DaVinci Resolve, versioned), clearly distinguishing it from sibling export tools like fcpxml_export_edl or fcpxml_export_fcp7.

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 implies usage for converting FCPXML to Resolve format but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other export tools). No when-not or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.

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