import_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that files are added to the asset library and must be absolute paths on the server machine, but it omits side effects, duplicate or overwrite behavior, permissions, supported formats, error conditions, and what the call returns.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The path constraint follows naturally as an operational note.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, this is too sparse. It is missing parameter meanings, side-effect details, and return/error expectations that an agent would need before invoking it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains only that paths must be absolute; project and labels are left unexplained, and the role of labels in the asset library is not clarified.

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 and resource: adding video, audio, and images to the project's asset library. That is clear enough to distinguish importing assets from timeline-oriented siblings like add_clip or add_music, but it does not explicitly name any sibling or boundary.

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 asset-library framing implies when to use this tool, and the absolute-path requirement gives a practical precondition. However, it does not say when to use import_media versus add_clip, add_music, inspect_media, or import_transcript, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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