fcpxml_generate_montage

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a file-generating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 one-sentence purpose and a clear Args list. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbiage. Minor improvement could be using a more structured format.

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 mention what the tool returns. It also fails to explain the duration format or specify output behavior fully, leaving gaps for a 5-parameter 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?

The description adds value by explaining the structure of clips_json and the purpose of each parameter, partially compensating for 0% schema coverage. However, it lacks clarity on duration format (e.g., '90090/30000s') and output_path behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 generates a montage/highlight reel with uniform clip durations and transitions, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fcpxml_create_project or fcpxml_auto_rough_cut.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for montage creation but does not differentiate from similar tools like fcpxml_auto_rough_cut or provide any usage constraints.

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