Import asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core action (copy, implying the original file remains) and the return value (an asset id). However, it does not mention potential errors, prerequisites like file existence/permissions, or the optional label behavior. It adds some value but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word earns its place. It includes the necessary file type constraint and the output (asset id) without any redundant or vague wording.

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 simple import tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states what it does, what input is needed (local file with type constraints), and what is returned (asset id). It doesn't cover edge cases like duplicate names or label behavior, but for the tool's scope, the essential information is present.

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 50%; only 'path' has a description. The tool description adds meaning to 'path' by specifying it must be a local file of type image/video/audio, which goes beyond the schema's 'Absolute path.' However, 'label' is left completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 ('Copy'), the resource ('a local file'), the destination ('into the broll workspace'), and the outcome ('get an asset id for it'). It also specifies supported file types (image/video/audio), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image or generate_video that create assets rather than import them.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you have a local file to bring into the workspace. It doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or mention alternatives, but the verb 'Copy' and the resource context make the usage scenario unambiguous.

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