import_captions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely drops it. It does not say which sequence or caption track receives the imported captions, whether existing captions are replaced or appended, whether the file path is absolute or project-relative, or what errors occur on malformed/unmatched files.

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 no filler and no repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved partly by omitting information the agent actually needs rather than by tight editing.

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?

With a mutation-style import, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the target destination and result (which sequence, which track, what the agent gets back). Those essentials are absent, leaving the agent unable to predict side effects before invoking.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents filePath and its accepted extensions. The description's format list merely restates the schema's extension hint and adds no new semantics such as path resolution rules or required file validity.

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?

Uses a specific verb (import) and resource (captions), and names the exact accepted formats (SRT, SCC, MCC), so the agent knows precisely what operation this performs. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like add_caption_track, add_caption, or import_media, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_caption, add_caption_sequence, or import_media, and no stated prerequisites such as an active sequence or an existing caption track. The agent must infer all routing and preconditions from the tool name alone.

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