import_footage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('import') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this overwrites existing footage, requires specific permissions, handles errors for invalid file paths, or provides feedback on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('import footage') and specifies media types and destination without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with external file handling) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address error conditions, return values, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate. For a tool that modifies project state, more context 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'footage' relates to 'filePath' and 'project' relates to organization via 'folderName'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('import') and resource ('footage') with specific media types (video, image, or audio) and destination ('into the project'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_solid_layer' or 'create_composition' by focusing on importing external media rather than creating internal elements. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential media-handling siblings that might not exist in this list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open project), exclusions (e.g., file format limitations), or comparisons to siblings like 'batch_create_layers' for bulk operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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