reels_import_asset

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context beyond them — and it does: content-hash deduplication ('stored once by content hash') and an explicit prohibition on arbitrary URLs or code execution. What it does not disclose is what happens on a duplicate import or what is returned.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the key safety constraint ('no arbitrary URLs or code') is front-loaded alongside the dedup behavior. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter import tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, accepted asset types, storage semantics, and safety limits. The main remaining omission is any hint about the result of an import (e.g., a returned asset identifier) or duplicate-handling behavior.

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 0%, so the single 'path' parameter is entirely undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by implying the path is relative to the configured import root, but it never states format, relative-vs-absolute, or supported extensions per asset type, so a real gap remains.

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?

Specific verb ('Import') plus resource types (audio, image, self-contained GLB) and a scoping constraint ('configured local import root'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from read-side siblings like reels_get_asset or reels_search_assets, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings (reels_register_asset, reels_import_pipeline).

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?

Implicit usage is conveyed through the 'local import root' and 'no arbitrary URLs or code' constraints, which tell the agent this is for files already staged locally. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over reels_register_asset, reels_download_asset, or reels_import_pipeline, so the agent must infer the split.

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