bin_import_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful behavioral context: name defaults to filename, duration defaults to an ffprobe auto-probe, and clip_type acts as a media-type hint. However, it does not disclose side effects of importing (e.g., whether the file is copied or referenced, overwrite behavior on name collision, or failure behavior for invalid paths).

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?

One purpose sentence followed by a tight Args block. Every line earns its place, the core action is front-loaded, and the parameter explanations are compact without redundancy.

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description is nearly complete for a 4-parameter import tool. It documents all parameters meaningfully and covers defaults and the ffprobe probing behavior. Minor gaps are the lack of edge-case/error handling and no mention of what happens on re-importing the same path.

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%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained with meaning beyond the bare schema: clip_path's accepted media kinds, name's fallback behavior, duration's units and image-specific use, and clip_type's role as a hint.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Ingest') and a clear resource ('media file into the project bin'), and states the purpose ('for later timeline use'). It is readily distinguishable from the other bin_* siblings (bin_remove_clip, bin_list_clips, bin_get_clip_details), which perform clearly different operations.

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 when to use the tool via the phrase 'Ingest a media file into the project bin' and the supported media types (video, audio, image). However, it never explicitly states when not to use it, mentions no exclusions, and does not reference alternative tools such as timeline_add_clip or bin_move_clip.

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