ae_import_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, error handling, supported file types, or the behavior of the optional placement (e.g., what happens if the composition doesn't exist). This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main action. It is efficient but could be improved by including more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

The description lacks completeness given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema). It omits return values, error states, and specific behaviors for parameters like comp or scaleToFit. More context is needed for reliable invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 80%, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond 'optionally place it in a composition'. The schema already documents each parameter's purpose, so the description provides no additional clarity or usage tips.

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 tool's purpose: importing media files (image/video/audio) into the project and optionally placing them in a composition. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ae_add_layer_to_comp which handle existing layers.

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, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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