pr_importCaptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-ness is covered. The description adds real value by saying a NEW caption track is created and placement defaults to time 0, but it omits whether an active sequence is required or what happens on format mismatch/overwrite.

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 application prefix, the action, the effect, and the default time – no filler.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool with 40% parameter documentation, the description covers the core behavior but leaves the `bin` parameter unexplained and gives no precondition or failure context, so an agent can start the call but may misuse the schema-only fields.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the default for `time` and hints that `path` is a caption file, but it says nothing about `bin`, nothing about `sequence` (only the schema does), and nothing about what the `format` enum values (subtitle/608/708/teletext/openEBU…) actually select.

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 gives a specific verb (import) and resource (.srt or other caption file) and states the concrete effect: a new caption track starting at a given time. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling `pr_addCaptions`, which an agent could confuse with this tool, 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'import an .srt (or other caption file)' – the agent can infer this is for importing caption files rather than authoring captions. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over `pr_addCaptions` or any prerequisite (e.g. an open sequence).

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