import_mogrt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'imports', giving no details about side effects, whether the sequence is modified in a reversible way, potential errors, or what happens to existing content at the specified time. This is a significant gap for a write/import operation.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easily scannable.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain return values, error scenarios, or the behavior of the import (e.g., clip placement, track usage). The schema covers parameters but not the overall context.

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 schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline 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 action (imports), the resource (Motion Graphics Template .mogrt file), and the target (into a sequence). This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like import_mogrt_from_library by emphasizing 'file'.

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 context is implied: use this tool to import a .mogrt file into a sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like import_mogrt_from_library or add_to_timeline, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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