import_frames

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral facts: a mutation that creates a NEW layer (non-destructive to existing content) and that file order maps to frame order. It says nothing about frame-size compatibility, failure handling for missing paths, what happens if the document lacks an animation timeline, or what is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler; every clause carries information. It is efficient, though the terseness trades away detail that this 3-parameter tool needs.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine what 'step' and 'first_frame' do or what constraints apply to the imported images, so it would have to guess on a call that creates document content.

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%, so all three parameters are undocumented in structured data. The description only implicitly touches 'paths' via '(in order)'; 'step' (presumably a frame sampling interval) and 'first_frame' (presumably a starting frame offset) are never explained, leaving their meaning to guesswork.

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 gives a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('image files from the workspace') plus the resulting artifact ('frames of a new animated layer'), which clearly separates it from siblings like import_image or import_video. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the animated-layer outcome makes the intent unambiguous.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for building animation from an ordered image sequence, and '(in order)' hints the paths list is sequenced. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., an open document), and no mention of when to prefer import_video or batch instead.

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