Import footage into Studio

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent profile; the description adds genuinely non-obvious facts: it requires the Studio-owned Open dialog to be open, the token is burned on use, retries are therefore unsafe, and originals are not moved. It does not describe failure/timeout behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then the token cost, then the verification follow-up. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent that success must be established by inspecting the resulting screen rather than a return value — a useful pointer. But it leaves out prerequisites (which tool produces the token), the format/constraints of 'paths', and any partial-failure semantics for a batch of up to 32 files.

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 50%: observation_token is self-documented as a single-use token, which the description merely echoes. The 'paths' parameter is undocumented in both places — the description only hints they are local file paths, without saying whether they are absolute, what the 32-item cap means, or how duplicates/invalid paths are handled.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Import existing local media') and the mechanism ('Studio-owned Open dialog'), which is enough to separate it from the export/verification siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Consumes its token' and 'Inspect the resulting screen to establish import success' imply the workflow (observe first, verify after), but the description never says so outright or names the tools to call (studio_observe, studio_verify_export) or when not to use this. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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