import_sound_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real implementation context: it names the legacy factory path, states the asset is saved to disk, and that it is verified by reloading. It does not warn that replace_existing defaults true and can overwrite an existing asset, which is the key destructive consequence an agent should know.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then verification behavior, then return fields. The one inefficiency is redundancy: the sentence listing asset_path/duration/num_channels is restated in the Returns block, which is slightly duplicative but not harmful.

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?

No output schema exists, so documenting the returned fields (asset_path, duration, num_channels, imported) is necessary and present. For a destructive, non-idempotent import tool it still omits what happens when an asset already occupies the destination path, which is a meaningful gap. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already carries all four parameters with clear semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., path format constraints or replace_existing interaction) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (import an external WAV into a USoundWave asset) and explicitly distinguishes the mechanism from the Interchange pipeline, which differentiates it from siblings like interchange_import_asset. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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 names the pipeline this uses ('legacy USoundFactory (AudioEditor module) path, no Interchange'), which is effectively a when-to-use discriminator against the Interchange import tools. However, it never explicitly names an alternative to prefer under specific conditions or states when-not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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