Import footage

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

The description discloses supported media types and the fact that new item IDs are returned, which goes beyond the sparse annotations. It does not, however, mention duplicate-handling behavior, failure cases, or what happens with invalid paths, which would be useful for a mutating import tool.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the additional details about media types and return value each add value.

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 low-complexity three-import with full schema coverage spells, the description plus schema covers required inputs, supported file types, and the return contract. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of returned item IDs is valuable.

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%, and the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds light context by mentioning image sequences, but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('Import files into the project'), names the supported media types, and explicitly says it returns item IDs to use with ae_add_layer. This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like ae_add_layer and ae_run_script.

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 clear workflow context: use it to bring media into the project before adding layers with ae_add_layer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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