audio_import

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

Annotations already declare the write/mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: the required file-access permission and the explicit 'Undoable' reversibility guarantee. It does not say what happens if the target slot already holds a clip, which is the one behavioral gap.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and supported formats, followed by the sequencing hint and prerequisites. No filler or 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers formats, destination, permission prerequisite, undoability, and the follow-on step. Only the overwrite/occupied-slot behavior is left unaddressed.

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% and all three parameters are well documented, including the UUID-vs-index tradeoff for track and the 0-based slot semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (load) plus the resource (audio file), enumerates supported formats, and pins the destination as a session slot on an audio track. The analogy to browser drag-and-drop and the pointer to arrangement.place_clip for timeline placement separate it from siblings unambiguously.

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?

Explains the prerequisite (file access granted in Omni's Settings) and routes the agent to arrangement.place_clip for the timeline-placement step, which implicitly defines this tool's scope as session-slot loading only. It stops short of naming an explicit when-not-to-use case or contrasting with audio_transcribe/audio_split_stems.

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