importFootage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses little: it doesn't say whether re-importing the same path duplicates the project item, whether existing comps must be open, what happens if the file or comp is missing, or whether the operation is reversible. Only the media-acceptance behavior is conveyed.

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 naming the action, source, and accepted inputs, with the optional comp insertion tacked on parenthetically where it belongs. No filler, though it is too terse for a 10-parameter tool.

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?

Ten parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the description never says what the call returns (imported item identity or created layer) — information an agent likely needs to chain into setLayerExpression or apply-effect. It also gives no guidance on compName vs compIndex precedence or whether a comp must already exist.

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 filePath, compName, compIndex, position, scale, duration, startTime, sequence and threeDLayer are already fully documented. The description adds only the high-level notion that a sequence import mode exists and that comp insertion is optional, which is baseline-level value.

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 (import) and resource (footage) with accepted media types (image, video, audio, sequence) and the optional composition insertion. It implicitly distinguishes itself from 'replaceFootage' by being the initial ingest step, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: use it to bring new media in from disk, and pass a comp to also place a layer. There is no explicit when-to-use vs 'replaceFootage' (already-imported items) or 'create-composition' (which must exist before compName/compIndex can be used), and no stated prerequisites.

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