fcpkit_relink_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces that with "Never rewrites the XML" while adding substantive behavior the annotations don't cover: NFC/NFD-aware path existence checks and bookmark presence. It does not discuss cost on large libraries or how many assets are reported, which keeps it below a 5 given the lower bar set by 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the report contents front-loaded and the key safety guarantee ("Never rewrites the XML") placed as a closing qualifier where it is most needed. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does by enumerating the four report elements per asset. The remaining gap is the treatment of the two optional-looking prefix parameters and what the output looks like when they are absent, which leaves a small but real hole for a 3-parameter 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 coverage is only 33% — only `xml` is documented, while `from_prefix` and `to_prefix` have no schema description. The phrase "whole-segment prefix remap" does add real semantics, implying segment-aware matching rather than substring replacement, but the description never says the two prefixes are optional, whether they must be supplied as a pair, or how the report changes when they are omitted.

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 uses a concrete verb ("Report") and enumerates exactly what is reported: media path per asset, existence with NFC/NFD awareness, bookmark presence, and the result of a hypothetical prefix remap. It is clearly a non-mutating diagnostic, which separates it from any sibling that edits a timeline. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but no listed sibling overlaps with relink diagnosis.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "what a whole-segment prefix remap would find" plus "Never rewrites the XML" signals a dry-run to be consulted before committing a relink. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use sentence and no named alternative or follow-up tool. Adequate for an agent to infer intent, but it requires inference.

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