import_edl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool does not import but reports unavailability, and explains why. However, it does not specify the exact return value or outcome when invoked (e.g., error, message), which is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core behavior, the technical reason, and the alternative. Perfectly front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 stub tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the limitation, the reason, and the recommended path. It could be improved by explicitly stating the return behavior, but overall it gives an agent enough context to avoid misuse.

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 100%, with filePath described as 'The absolute path to the .edl file'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: it reports that CMX 3600 EDL import is unavailable, rather than performing an import. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool import_fcp_xml by naming it explicitly as the recommended alternative.

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 directly instructs to use import_fcp_xml for unattended timeline interchange, providing a clear alternative. It also explains the context (dialog-safe MCP server, Premiere's EDL API blocking CEP), which tells the agent when this tool is not suitable and when to choose the alternative.

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