Import Footage

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the atomic validation behavior ('All files are checked before any is imported') and that folder files the imports — behavioral traits not present in the annotations.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core action leads, then mode semantics, then interpretation params, then the atomicity guarantee. Every clause carries information with no filler, despite the telegraphic style.

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?

For an 8-param mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key mode/interpretation semantics and the check-before-import guarantee. It omits failure behavior and the unexplained 'name' param, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 coverage is only 13% (just fps documented), so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains as (sequence/comp/comp_cropped), fps/loop/alpha as interpretation settings, folder as the filing target, and path as the sequence's first frame. Only 'name' is left unexplained, a minor gap against 8 params.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Import a file, or several (paths), into the project') and clarifies the multiple modes via the 'as' enum. It references the sibling set_item as the tool for later interpretation changes, giving partial differentiation, though it doesn't position itself against other import-adjacent 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?

Usage is implied through the 'as' mode explanations (sequence = first frame, comp/comp_cropped = layered PSD/AI) and the note that set_item changes interpretation later. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or stated prerequisites, so the agent must infer the right invocation context.

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