storage_import_to_pool

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the high-level operation without mentioning side effects (e.g., copy vs. move), prerequisites (e.g., an open project), or potential errors. This is minimal transparency for a mutating 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, clear sentence that leads with the verb and includes only necessary information. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so baseline completeness is acceptable. However, the lack of annotations and absence of usage context (e.g., relationship to media_pool_import_media, whether a project must be open) leaves gaps that could cause incorrect tool selection or invocation.

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 fully documents the single file_paths parameter with examples. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it neither helps nor harms beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 ('Import'), source ('files from media storage'), and destination ('current project's media pool'). It is specific and likely distinct from storage browsing tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling media_pool_import_media.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as media_pool_import_media or storage_get_files. The usage is only implied by the wording, with no explicit when/when-not conditions or prerequisite mentions.

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