ue_import_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states a simple import action. It omits crucial details such as whether files are from the filesystem, overwrite behavior, support for multiple files, path handling, or side effects on the Content Browser.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is in Italian while the tool name is English, which may cause confusion. It lacks detail but is efficiently short.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, many siblings), the description is insufficient. It does not mention the output schema, behavior with invalid files, or differentiate from other audio-related tools.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'files' or 'destination'. It doesn't clarify what path format is expected (absolute, relative, content path) or the default value's meaning.

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 clearly states the action (import) and resource (.wav files) and result (SoundWave in Content Browser). It specifies the file type and asset type, distinguishing from sibling import tools. However, it doesn't contrast explicitly with ue_import_assets or other audio tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ue_import_assets, ue_create_metasound_source, or ue_create_sound_cue. There are no prerequisites or scenario descriptions.

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