Import audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: the import persists by saving the project, and it creates a new track to hold the files. However, it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, undo/reversibility, or what happens to an existing track at the same position.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the action and its scope, and the side-effect caveat is placed after the main clause where it belongs. No filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and one key side effect but omits prerequisites, supported formats, and error behavior. Adequate to start, but not complete.

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 files, project, and position_seconds are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'at the given position' merely restates the position parameter without adding format or default semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (imports) and resource (audio files) plus the target scope (into the project at the given position) and the persistence effect (saves it). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like place_clip or assemble, but the purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose import_audio over alternatives such as place_clip, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether the .audium project must already exist, or which file formats are accepted). The trailing note about track creation is behavioral, not usage direction.

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