import_footage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It fails to disclose whether import is destructive (does it overwrite existing items?), whether permissions are needed, or what the response indicates (e.g., success, ID of imported item). The word 'import' implies creation, but mutation/read behaviors are undefined.

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 5 words – appropriately sized for a simple tool. No extraneous detail. However, it could benefit from front-loaded key info (e.g., 'Imports a single footage file into the current project.') without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a complex set of sibling tools (import_folder, add_av_layer), the description is insufficient. It does not explain boolean parameters, error states, or return values. A user/agent would need to infer behavior from parameter names alone.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'import footage file'. Parameters like 'sequence' and 'forceAlphabetical' are unmentioned in the description, relying entirely on schema descriptions. This meets minimum adequacy but does not enhance understanding of parameter combination effects.

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 'Import footage file into the project' uses a clear verb ('import') and resource ('footage file', 'project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with compositions, layers, effects, or project management. However, it does not clarify that it imports a single file at a time, which could be ambiguous given the presence of 'import_folder' and 'replace_footage' siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'import_folder', 'replace_footage', or 'add_av_layer'. No context is provided about prerequisites (e.g., is the project already open?), required file formats, or what happens if the file path is invalid. The description implies use for importing a file but gives no conditions or exclusions.

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