Import Mogrt From Library

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: library contents cannot be enumerated via CEP, host acceptance is 'committed_unverified' (fire-and-forget), and rendered appearance must be manually checked in Premiere. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or error behavior, but the unverified-commit disclosure is genuinely 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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded and the caveats packed into the second. It is efficient, though the second sentence is dense with internal jargon ('committed_unverified') that is not self-explanatory.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the key caveats (unverifiable host acceptance, manual visual check) for a mutation tool. It leaves out auth and failure handling, but is otherwise complete for calling the tool correctly.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the library_name concept and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Request importing a MOGRT') plus the source scope ('from a named Adobe Creative Cloud Library'), which distinguishes it from the sibling import_mogrt and the publish_mogrt_to_library family. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'from a named Library' framing, but the description never explicitly says when to pick this over import_mogrt or names any alternative or exclusion condition. An agent must infer the routing from sibling names.

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