Import Edl

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

The description fully discloses that the tool performs no import and why: the Premiere UI it would open can block the CEP bridge. This behavioral detail goes well beyond the annotations, which only carry generic hints and do not reveal the no-op nature or the blocking risk.

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 sentences carry all essential information: unavailability, the risk, the no-op behavior, and the alternative. The key verdict is front-loaded with 'Unavailable by design,' and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 deliberately unavailable tool, the description is complete: it explains what would happen if called naively, why it is not attempted, and exactly which sibling tool to use instead. The output schema exists, the parameter list is minimal, and the guidance is sufficient for an agent to make the correct routing decision.

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?

The input schema already fully documents file_path with 100% coverage. The description adds the CMX 3600 EDL context but does not add new parameter-level semantics such as path format, validation rules, or expected file extensions. Since schema coverage is complete, 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 immediately states 'Unavailable by design' and 'No import is attempted,' making the tool's actual behavior unmistakable. It names the specific resource (CMX 3600 EDL) and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling import_fcp_xml rather than just restating the title.

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 explicitly explains that this tool should not be used for EDL import and gives the exact alternative workflow: convert the EDL to FCP7 XML and call import_fcp_xml. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including the reason for the exclusion.

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