import_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and destination, but does not explain whether files are copied or referenced, what happens on invalid paths, whether it mutates project state, or any error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no filler words. It front-loads the verb and object, making it immediately clear what the tool does. It earns its place 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description provides a minimum viable explanation of the action and context. However, it omits return-value behavior, failure scenarios, and prerequisites like whether a media pool must exist. These gaps make it adequate but not thorough.

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 and no parameter details in the description, the description must compensate. It only implies that 'file_paths' refers to media files, but does not specify path format, supported file types, or whether URLs are accepted. This leaves the sole parameter under-documented.

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 uses a specific verb 'Import' with a clear resource 'media files' and a destination 'current media pool folder'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_project and import_timeline_from_file, which target different resource types.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when importing media files into the current media pool folder. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used, such as importing projects or timelines, which are covered by sibling tools.

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