media_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It accurately discloses that this is a copy/mutation operation and states source types and destination, but it does not explain overwrite behavior, how the optional name affects storage, or what the operation returns.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every clause contributes useful information about the source or destination.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the core action and source semantics are covered, but the `name` parameter and expected result are left unspecified. Given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more detail about naming and return value would make it complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The narrative explains `source` by specifying local file or HTTP(S) URL, but it never mentions the optional `name` parameter or its role, leaving a meaningful gap in a two-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Copy', and identifies the resource, the local media store, plus the accepted source forms. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like media_list and media_probe, which are read-oriented.

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 when to use the tool: when media needs to be brought into the local media store. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives, so the usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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