media_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety basics. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: ae imports into a project with optional add-to-comp, pr imports into a bin and optionally places on a track at a time, ps places as smart objects or opens, and ai places or opens. It does not describe permissions or overwrite behavior, but the app-specific outcomes are substantial.

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, front-loaded sentence with a structured parenthetical list by app. It is dense but efficient, with no filler. A bulleted structure could improve readability, but every clause contributes useful 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 multi-app import tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and only broad annotations, the description covers app-specific outcomes well. However, it leaves optional parameters like sequence and compositionName undocumented and does not explain return behavior or path handling in detail. It is adequate but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps the required app enum to app-specific outcomes and explains some optional parameters (addToComp, bin, track, time), but it omits clear semantics for sequence and compositionName, and does not specify time units or track format. It adds meaningful context for several parameters but leaves notable gaps.

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 specific verb and resource: importing downloaded/local media into an Adobe app in one call. It enumerates app-specific outcomes for ae, pr, ps, and ai, so an agent can understand what the tool does without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling import tools, keeping it below 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?

The description implies usage by explaining app-specific behavior and the 'one call' convenience, but it does not state when to use this tool versus app-specific alternatives such as ae_importFile, pr_importFiles, ps_placeFile, or ai_placeFile. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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