import_fcp_xml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the import 'requests Premiere UI suppression' and warns that 'malformed or unsupported XML can still be rejected by Premiere.' However, for a mutating import operation, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the project state beyond creating a new sequence.

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 three sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the operational result and then important caveats. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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 single-required-parameter import with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the result (new sequence), the required format, and a likely failure mode. It omits minor operational details like whether a project must already be open, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden for explaining return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the filePath parameter must reference legacy FCP7 XML and explicitly excludes modern FCPXML 1.x, which supplements the schema's minimal 'absolute path to the FCP7 XML file' description.

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 states a specific verb ('Imports') and a specific resource ('Final Cut Pro 7 XML (XMEML) file into the current project') and explains the direct consequence: 'Premiere creates a new sequence with the cuts/clips defined in the XML.' It also distinguishes the tool from modern FCPXML imports, so an agent can tell what format this tool is for.

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 clear usage context: import legacy FCP7 XML into the current project, and explicitly warns 'not modern FCPXML 1.x from Final Cut Pro X.' However, it does not name sibling tools such as import_sequences or import_edl as alternatives, so the distinction is format-based rather than tool-based.

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