filmora_import_media_dialog

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is already conveyed structurally. The description adds the workflow ordering constraint but never explains the destructive aspect (what opening this dialog discards) or what the call returns. With annotations carrying safety, this is a moderate contribution.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the ordering constraint trailing. No filler, though the second clause is slightly compressed and could be clearer.

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 zero-parameter dialog opener with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the follow-on ordering. However, 'list/select its window' is ambiguous about what the tool actually returns or exposes, and the destructiveHint is left unexplained, leaving an agent to infer behavior.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the mention of 'filling paths' correctly implies paths arrive through a later step, not this call.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Open the import chooser'), which is clearly distinct from generic siblings like filmora_open_panel or filmora_click. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent dialog tools (filmora_open_project_dialog, filmora_fill_file_dialog), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'list/select its window before filling paths' establishes sequencing: this is the first step and window selection must precede path filling. It gives clear operational context but names no alternative tool and states no when-not condition.

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