fcpxml_remove_silence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose key behaviors such as whether the tool overwrites the input file, creates a new file, or what happens if output_path is empty. The nature of 'gaps' (silence?) is also assumed.

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 a single clear sentence followed by a structured Args list. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen). The description does not explain the output format, side effects, or error conditions. It is insufficient for a file manipulation 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%, and the description adds brief but useful parameter descriptions (e.g., path is .fcpxml file, silence_threshold_seconds is in seconds). However, it does not clarify defaults for output_path or behavior when empty.

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 removes gaps longer than a threshold from the timeline, and the Args list specifies the file path. It is distinct from sibling tools like fcpxml_detect_gaps and fcpxml_fill_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as media_detect_silence or other fcpxml gap tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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