Verify Fcpxml Media References

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

Annotations already state the safety profile, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: references outside approved roots are never statted or exposed as local paths. It does not clarify any side effects or why readOnlyHint is false, but the security-boundary disclosure is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action and the important root-scoping constraint are front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description covers the key scope and privacy behavior, though it leaves mildly ambiguous what 'verify' includes beyond path eligibility.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail. The description reinforces the allowed_roots constraint but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: verify file:// media references of an FCPXML or FCP7 XML document. It also states the scope constraint of caller-approved roots. However, it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as inspect_fcpxml_interchange, so 4 rather than 5.

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 through its scope constraint: only references inside caller-approved existing roots are inspected. It does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance at the minimum viable level.

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