fcpxml_reformat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like file modification side effects, permissions needed, or constraints. The description only states the action without deeper context.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and lists parameters without fluff. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the parameter list could be integrated more naturally.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), which might document return values. However, the description lacks context about overwriting behavior, valid input formats, or what the output contains. It is minimally complete for a simple reformat operation but lacks detail.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description lists parameters but adds no new meaning (e.g., valid values for target_format_name, relationship between width/height and format name). The example mentions aspect ratio change but doesn't map to parameters.

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 reformats a timeline for a different aspect ratio, with a concrete example (16:9 → 9:16). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fcpxml_create_project or fcpxml_export_edl.

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 via the example but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives such as fcpxml_export_xml or other reformat-like tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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