import_footage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies an import operation (data intake, non-destructive to existing items) but does not disclose whether the file is copied versus linked, whether supported formats exist, or what happens on failure. No contradictions since annotations are absent.

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, focused sentence with no redundant text. It could benefit from a bit more context, but it remains appropriately concise for a tool with four well-documented parameters in the schema.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat lacking. It does not clarify whether the import is blocking or async, how path resolution works (relative vs absolute), or what the tool returns upon success. The presence of sibling tools like 'collect_files' and 'reduce_project' suggests a larger workflow where this tool's role and limitations (e.g., single file only) should be clearer.

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%, providing baseline clarity for all four parameters. The description adds no extra context beyond the schema, such as how 'sequence' interacts with 'forceAlphabetical' or what format 'path' must follow. With full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not degrade understanding but adds no unique value.

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 the specific action 'Import footage file into the project'. It uses an appropriate verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like 'import_folder' and 'replace_footage', though it could more explicitly note what 'footage' means (e.g., video/audio files vs other assets).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'import_folder' for importing multiple items or 'replace_footage' for swapping existing footage. The description does not specify prerequisites like file format support, project state requirements, or excluded scenarios.

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