Verify Fcpxml Media References

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond annotations: references outside the approved roots are 'never statted or exposed as local paths.' This is a critical safety property not visible in the annotations or schema, and it directly informs an agent's trust and usage decisions.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the crucial safety constraint appears in the second sentence without unnecessary detail.

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 tool has an output schema, fully described parameters, and a concise yet precise description of its scope and safety behavior, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly. The description plus schema and annotations form a complete contract.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds the notion of 'caller-approved' roots and clarifies the verification boundary, but it does not substantially extend the schema's parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Verify'), the resource ('FCPXML file:// media references'), and the specific scope constraint ('only inside caller-approved existing roots'). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as inspect_fcpxml_interchange or verify_delivery_file.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema already covers. The intended use case is implied by the name and description, but not articulated.

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