fablecut_import_media

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses it copies and registers the file, and returns a media entry. However, it omits details like file existence checks, type validation, error handling, side effects on project state, and whether the file is copied or moved.

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 sentences: first defines action and scope, second explains return value. No wasted words, efficient structure.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter. Description covers purpose and return value adequately. Missing details on error cases, duplicate handling, or permissions, but acceptable for a basic import. No output schema, so return information is useful.

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 has 100% coverage describing 'path' as absolute path. Description adds 'local media file' reinforcing that the source is local. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter well and description adds minimal extra meaning.

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?

Description states it copies a local media file into FableCut's media library and registers it in the project, specifying media types (video/audio/image). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle docs, project settings, analysis, and status.

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 implies use when importing media into the project, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or prerequisites (e.g., file must exist and be accessible). Siblings are not media-related, so no direct alternative, but context could be clearer.

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