fablecut_import_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses side effects (local files are copied, remote files downloaded into ./media/), a refused input class (remote SVG/CORS-breaking URLs), and the deliberate decision not to retain the URL as the playback src. It also states the return value and how to use it.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and then the input rules and return value. Every clause adds actionable information with no filler.

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 single-parameter import tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, input forms, failure modes, side effects (copy/download location), and the shape of the result plus how to use the returned id. Nothing material is missing.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: accepted source forms, format restrictions, and the .svg local-vs-remote distinction that the schema's one-line description does not convey.

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 (a media file into FableCut's media library and the project), and the scope is narrow enough to distinguish it from siblings like fablecut_patch_project or fablecut_analyze_reference. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 concrete selection rules for the single input: a local absolute path (copied, .svg allowed) vs. an https:// URL (downloaded, video/audio/image only, remote SVG refused). It does not mention any alternative tool or when this is the wrong choice relative to siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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