import_audio_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a major limitation (Live's API cannot load arbitrary paths) and specifies that a clear error is returned if the file isn't reachable. It also clarifies that track_index must be an audio track and clip_index must be empty. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover all edge cases like overwriting behavior.

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 well-structured: a clear lead sentence, a highlighted limitation callout, a fallback statement, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff.

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 a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, limitations, error handling, and parameter semantics, giving an agent sufficient guidance to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: track_index is described as 'Audio track to load into (must be an audio track)', clip_index as 'Empty Session-view clip slot index', and file_path with supported formats (.wav, .aif, .mp3, etc.). This fully covers parameter meaning.

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's function: 'Load an audio file from disk into a Session-view clip slot on an audio track.' This uses a specific verb ('Load') and identifies the resource and target, distinguishing it from siblings like load_instrument_or_effect and create_clip.

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?

It provides clear context for when the tool works: the file must be in a browser-reachable location, and it explains the error/fallback behavior. No explicit alternatives are named, but no sibling tool directly replaces this functionality, so exclusions are not essential.

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