import_mogrt_from_library

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 merely repeats the basic functionality without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., open sequence), required permissions, or what happens to the sequence after import. The description does not disclose whether this is a mutating operation or what the outcome looks like.

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 of 11 words, making it extremely concise and front-loaded. There is no redundant information or filler.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or typical usage context. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, providing descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Imports a Motion Graphics Template') and the resource ('from a Creative Cloud Library'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'import_mogrt' that likely handles local file imports. This is a specific verb+resource pairing with clear scope.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling 'import_mogrt' or clarify that this is the correct choice for CC Library imports specifically. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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