ae_importImage

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description contributes the real behavior: the default is to add the imported item to the comp, and asGuide creates a locked 50%-opacity guide layer. It omits what happens on name collisions, whether an existing project/comp is required, and what is returned, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core action and use compact notation ('fit contain|cover|width|height|none', '(default)') without filler. The telegraphic style is slightly hard to parse but every clause carries information.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it leaves a third of the parameter surface unexplained and says nothing about required context (an open project/active comp) or import failure modes.

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 coverage is only 25% across 12 parameters, and the description explains only some of them: fit enum behavior, position, scale, name, asGuide, and asComp. Parameters like folder, sequence, startTime, compositionName, and addToComp are left entirely to the schema, so it partially but not fully compensates for the low coverage.

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 with supported file types ('import an image/video/audio/PSD/AI file into the project') and the default side effect (add to comp). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling ae_importFile, which an agent could easily confuse with this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for two options ('asGuide:true makes a locked 50% guide layer for tracing a reference', 'PSD/AI with asComp:true import as a layered comp'), which is genuinely useful. However it never says when to prefer this over ae_importFile or ae_importFile, nor what prerequisites (an open project/comp) are needed.

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