import_edl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not perform the import but reports unavailability, and explains the underlying reason (interactive dialog blocks CEP). This is transparent about the tool's behavior, though it could mention what the tool actually returns (e.g., an error or status).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key message, and no wasted words. The description is concise and structured effectively.

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 the tool's simple purpose (reporting unavailability) and the single parameter, the description is complete. It explains the limitation, the reason, and the alternative. It could mention the return value, but the lack of an output schema and the tool's nature make this less critical.

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% for the single filePath parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds context about the file type (.edl) but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reports that EDL import is unavailable, naming the specific format (CMX 3600 EDL) and the reason (interactive dialog blocks CEP). It distinguishes itself from the sibling import_fcp_xml by explicitly recommending it as the alternative.

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 explicitly states when not to use this tool (EDL import is unavailable) and directs the agent to use import_fcp_xml for unattended timeline interchange. This provides clear guidance on alternatives and context.

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