import_track

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

Despite annotations indicating a mutable operation, the description adds significant behavioral context: it warns about database modification, mandates closing rekordbox, explains that imported tracks start unanalyzed, and details how `auto_tag` interacts with explicit arguments. This goes well beyond the annotations and is highly informative.

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 efficiently organized with a clear purpose, a caution note, a parameter list, and return information. While it is longer than average, every sentence serves a purpose given the tool's complexity, and the structured format makes it easy to scan.

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?

This tool has 11 parameters and an output schema, but the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, prerequisites, side effects, parameter semantics, and return value. The inclusion of the `Returns` section is particularly thorough and leaves no major gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: `path` includes supported formats, `artist` can create a new artist row, `auto_tag` defaults to true and explicit arguments override tag values. Each parameter's meaning and defaults are clarified, adding substantial value over the raw 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?

The description immediately states 'Import a single audio file into the rekordbox library' with a specific verb and resource. The qualifier 'single' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling `import_tracks`, making its scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: it modifies the rekordbox database, requires rekordbox to be closed, and results in an unanalyzed track that needs 'Analyze Tracks'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for batch imports, so while the guidance is strong, it falls short of giving explicit when-not-to-use instructions.

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