fcpkit_brief_apply

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: only changed lines are written, main-storyline cuts accept vol only, out-of-scope edits abort with nothing written, the result is verified and DTD-validated, and the source is never overwritten. That is consistent with readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false. It does not explain how dry_run or partial alter behavior, which leaves a behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then densely packed with constraints; nearly every clause carries information (accepted fields, refusal behavior, verification, no overwrite). Slightly heavy in embedded parentheticals, but no wasted sentences.

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?

For a mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the write semantics and safety but says nothing about the return value or about dry_run/partial modes. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to discover by probing.

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 only 60%, and the two undocumented parameters (dry_run, partial) are behaviorally significant flags that the description never mentions. The description clarifies the xml/edited_brief/out relationship somewhat, but it does not compensate for the missing flag 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?

States a specific verb and resource (apply an edited brief back to a NEW FCPXML) and pins the input's provenance to fcpkit_brief ids=true from this exact XML, which separates it cleanly from the sibling fcpkit_brief that produces the brief. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite (brief must come from fcpkit_brief ids=true on this exact XML) and an explicit allow-list of applicable edits, with the rule that anything else is refused. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use when the edit falls outside that list, but the guardrails make the intended usage unambiguous.

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