import-footage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses batch error handling ('Files that don't exist are reported individually without failing the rest of the batch'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention success behavior, side effects (e.g., project panel updates), or whether items are always newly created. This is partial transparency, not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is clear, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a crucial behavioral note about error handling. No fluff or redundant detail.

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 the moderate complexity (batch import, optional sequence, folder placement) and the lack of annotations, the description covers key behavior (batch error handling) and ties to usage context. It could mention return values, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Import one or more files into the project as footage items.' It also clarifies the intended use ('ready to use as a layer source or in populate-template's footage bindings'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like relink-footage and create-composition.

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 clear usage context by mentioning the items are for layer sources or populate-template bindings, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like relink-footage. Still, the purpose is distinct enough that the guidance is adequate.

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