import_media

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states what the tool does (imports to the Media Pool), the required input nature (existing local files, absolute paths), and a key non-behavior ('does not place them on the timeline'). This is meaningful beyond the bare tool name, though it does not address edge cases like duplicates or invalid paths.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the important exclusion is stated immediately after.

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 simple one-parameter import operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the key boundary condition. It does not explicitly mention duplicate handling, supported formats, or where in the Media Pool the import lands, but these are minor for this tool's primary use case.

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 0%, and the schema only exposes an array of strings named 'paths'. The description compensates by explaining that the tool takes absolute paths to existing local media files, giving crucial semantic meaning not present in the schema. It is somewhat minimal but sufficient for this single-parameter tool.

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 a clear verb ('Import'), the resource ('existing local media files ... into the Media Pool'), and the required input form ('by absolute path'). It also explicitly contrasts the action with a related outcome ('does not place them on the timeline'), which clearly differentiates it from timeline-adding 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to get local files into the Media Pool without adding them to the timeline. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as append_media or add_image, but the 'does not place them on the timeline' statement effectively signals that timeline placement would require a different tool.

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