export_fcp_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (writing a file to disk), overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if no active sequence exists. For an export tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

A single clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a required parameter that is undocumented in both schema and description, the definition is incomplete. An agent lacks necessary information about error handling, return value, and parameter usage to invoke this tool confidently.

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?

There is one parameter (outputPath) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The description implies writing to a path but adds no details about path format, directory requirements, or extension handling.

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 ('Export'), resource ('active sequence'), and output format ('Final Cut Pro XML'). This implicitly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_omf and export_aaf by format, but does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternatives.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_sequence, export_aaf, or export_omf. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active sequence) or exclusions.

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