fcpxml_import_srt

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 states 'add to timeline' implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing timeline, requirements like FCP being open, or limitations on subtitle formatting).

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 short and the purpose is front-loaded. The 'Args:' section organizes parameters clearly. However, it could be slightly more efficient by omitting the 'Args:' header if the purpose sentence already covered it.

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?

The description covers the basic function and parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it lacks information on prerequisites, error handling, or process details (e.g., whether it modifies the input file or creates a new one). For a subtitle import tool, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists three parameters and explains their roles (path: .fcpxml file, srt_path: .srt file, output_path: output file). It adds file format hints but does not describe expected formats, constraints, or how output_path differs from input path.

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 action (convert), the input resource (SRT subtitles), and the outcome (title clips added to timeline). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like fcpxml_create_timeline or fcpxml_add_title.

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 lists the arguments but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fcpxml_add_title for manual title placement). An agent would not know if this is the right tool for batch subtitle import.

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