ae_importFile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — files land in a project folder and are not added to a comp — but omits whether the folder is created when absent, overwrite/collision behavior, and whether existing project items are touched.

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 front-loaded sentence with the accepted file types listed parenthetically and the non-comp-placement constraint at the end. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical is slightly long.

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 project-mutating import tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and an enum whose values materially change the result, the description leaves too much unsaid. It covers file types but not folder existence, overwrite semantics, or importAs/sequence 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters. The description only hints at 'folder' via 'into a project folder'; it never explains the importAs enum values (footage vs comp vs compCroppedLayers vs project) or what the 'sequence' boolean toggles, which are the two decisions an agent most needs help with.

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 ('import files') and enumerates the accepted file types (footage, audio, image sequences, PSD/AI, .aep, .prproj), plus the behavioral scope 'into a project folder without adding to a comp.' An agent can tell this apart from ae_importImage and pr_importFiles by the host app and type list, though those siblings are never named.

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 phrase 'without adding to a comp' implicitly tells the agent this is a project-panel import rather than a comp placement, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to ae_importImage, media_import, or ae_manageItems for related operations.

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