live_import_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the import and clip creation, and the .ablx extension dependency. However, it fails to disclose what happens on failure, whether the operation is destructive, or any required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by placement logic. It is concise with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note about the output or the optional parameters without becoming verbose.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It covers core functionality but omits many parameter semantics, output details, and error handling. A more complete description would address these gaps.

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 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. It only clarifies scene_index and start_time implicitly, but does not describe confirm, duration, is_warped, or file_path (other than requiring .ablx). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool imports an audio file into a Live project and creates an audio clip. It specifies placement behavior based on scene_index, which helps differentiate from other clip creation tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from all sibling tools, but the verb+resource combination is specific.

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 conditional guidance on placement (session vs arrangement), which is useful. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites like track existence. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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