fcpxml_fill_gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool modifies the original file or creates a new one, what happens when output_path is empty, or if the fill asset must already be present in the project. This lack of information is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 one clear sentence followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, the parameter descriptions could be more structured or include example values more explicitly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not cover important context such as error handling, prerequisites (e.g., asset existence), or behavior when no gaps are present. It is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and many siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning to the parameters (e.g., fill_asset_ref is an asset resource ID with example 'r3', output_path is an output file path). However, it does not explain where to obtain the asset resource ID, what types of assets are valid, or the behavior when output_path is omitted. The added value is partial.

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 replaces all gaps in the timeline with clips from a specified asset. This is a specific verb ('replace') and resource ('gaps in timeline') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like fcpxml_detect_gaps.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fcpxml_detect_gaps or fcpxml_remove_silence. It only states what the tool does, without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use indications.

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