fcpxml_validate

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies files, or any permissions or side effects. No annotations are present to supplement this.

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 (2 lines) and includes an 'Args' section. However, the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the input schema. The core information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema (not described), the tool's description lacks completeness. It does not explain the validation scope, output format, or error types. More context is needed for effective use.

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%. The description adds only 'Path to .fcpxml file' to the parameter, which is a minor improvement over the schema's 'Path'. It does not specify file format restrictions, valid paths, or other semantic details.

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's action ('validate') and resource ('FCPXML structure'), with expected output ('report errors/warnings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific checks (e.g., audio, media links) or export/import operations.

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 like fcpxml_check_media_links or fcpxml_check_audio_levels. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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