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 burden. It discloses a constraint ('Paths must be absolute') and an unusual post-condition ('confirm the item count grew'), but does not mention side effects like creating a bin, potential for overwriting items, or any permission requirements. More context about the mutation behavior would be valuable.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 relatively simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, a key constraint, and a behavioral confirmation. It lacks explicit information about return values or error handling, but given the simplicity and full schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that paths are absolute but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions for file_paths and bin_name. It does not explain the bin_name parameter's role or how it relates to the project panel.

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'), the resource ('media files'), and the destination ('project panel'), along with a distinctive outcome ('confirm the item count grew'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_bin or list_project_items by focusing on the import action.

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 implies usage for importing media files, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks references to related tools like create_bin or list_project_items, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and schema.

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