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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by revealing that it mutates the library by importing files, requires user authorization, returns reusable asset IDs in input order, and only accepts temporary host file handles. This is useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, return behavior, and exclusions. Every sentence contributes a distinct, decision-relevant piece of information.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core context: what is imported, when to use it, what is returned, and what to avoid. It does not cover response format or error/duplicate behavior, but the provided detail is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation in most cases.

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 only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by clarifying that 'files' refers to temporary host file handles and that results are returned in input order, and it warns against invented URLs. However, it does not explain the nested fields (download_url, file_id, file_name, mime_type) or any validation beyond the schema's structural constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Import'), names the resource ('image, video, or audio files'), and constrains the source ('temporary host file handles') and destination ('connected private MaxVideoAI library'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating the return is asset IDs in input order and explicitly excluding invented URLs, existing library assets, local filesystem paths, generation, and spending.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the host provides attachments or authorized generation results as file handles.' It also gives a clear when-not list ('Do not use with invented URLs, existing library assets, local filesystem paths, generation, or spending'). It could name a specific alternative like create_reference_upload_link for non-host-handle sources, but the guidance is already strong.

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