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 only states basic import behavior without disclosing side effects, permissions, error conditions, or whether the operation is destructive. The example and file path mention add minimal context.

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?

A single sentence with 16 words, front-loading the key action and resource. No superfluous content; every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the core function and parameter meaning. However, it lacks information on return behavior, error handling, or expected outcomes, which could help the agent complete the task confidently.

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% with the 'paths' parameter already explained. The description adds media type clarification (video/audio/image) which is helpful but not critical. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides meaning.

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 verb 'import', the resource 'media files' including types, and the destination 'into the project panel' with method 'by absolute file path'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'insert_clip' or 'list_project_items'.

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 into the project panel but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like timeline insertion tools. It provides implicit guidance through the destination phrase, but no direct exclusions.

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