Import file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what is imported but not whether the file is linked or copied, whether re-importing duplicates existing footage, what happens on unsupported formats, or what the call returns (no output schema). For a mutating import tool this is a significant gap.

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 with the core action first and the optional behavior trailing. No wasted words and 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?

Adequate for a 3-parameter tool, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves the success result and failure modes unstated. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what it gets back or how failures surface.

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 67%: 'comp' is well documented and 'path' has a note about the AE host machine. The description supplies the missing meaning for the undocumented 'addToComp' flag by explaining the optional add-as-layer behavior, so it adds value beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Import a footage/image/audio file into the project') and clarifies the optional layer creation, which distinguishes it from the generated-layer siblings like ae_add_text_layer and ae_add_solid_layer. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, so it is clear rather than fully differentiated.

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 'optionally adding it to a composition as a layer' clause implies when addToComp should be used, and the trailing parameter description builds on it. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings or prerequisites (e.g., that the path must be reachable by the After Effects host).

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