import_mogrt

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 implies an import mutation but does not disclose whether a project must be open, whether the file must already exist, what kind of project item is created, or what happens on 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It clearly communicates the action and destination in an appropriately sized form.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool and the input schema fully documents the parameter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context about the import operation, such as prerequisites or expected outcome.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the parameter refers to a .mogrt file, but the schema already states it is a full path to the .mogrt file.

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 and resource: import a Motion Graphics Template (.mogrt) file into the project. It implicitly distinguishes the destination as the project rather than the timeline, which helps separate it from add_mogrt_to_timeline, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling import tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_mogrt_to_timeline, import_media, or get_available_mogrts. It implies usage from the verb and destination but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual selection criteria.

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