import_media

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) in a closed-world setting. The description adds the staging precondition and mentions rights metadata, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, or failure behavior.

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 no wasted wording. The key constraint appears immediately.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, the definition is too sparse. It covers the filename precondition and hints at rights metadata, but does not explain required title, creator, or license_name semantics.

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 the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions filename and rights metadata, but leaves title, creator, and license_name unclear, including the license default.

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 and resource: importing a media filename from the operator's managed inbox. The description is clear but does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as search_media, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: only with a filename already staged by the operator in the managed inbox. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not cases, which keeps it below a 5.

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