creator_import_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it clearly states the tool imports into the project as Parts and explicitly notes it does not replace the project, addressing a common destructive side-effect concern. It could further disclose undo behavior or duplicate handling, but for an import tool this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence covers what and where; the second adds a critical non-destructive clarification. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is fully self-contained. It explains the core behavior, the target location, accepted formats, and a key non-destructive property. Sibling tools provide sufficient context for differentiation, so no further detail is needed.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the exact file types (PNG/TGA/JPEG) that the 'paths' parameter accepts, which is not in the schema. The parent_uuid behavior is summarized as 'selected (or specified) node', reinforcing the schema's default note.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') with a clear resource ('PNG/TGA/JPEG files') and outcome ('as Parts under the selected (or specified) node'). It distinguishes itself from sibling import tools by enumerating raster formats and the 'Parts' result, making it easy to pick from creator_import_psd, creator_import_kra, etc.

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 context is implied through the supported file formats and the 'Does not replace the project' note, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creator_import_folder, creator_import_psd, or creator_import_kra. The description does not say 'use this when...' or 'for PSD files use...'.

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