import_media

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes a genuinely useful side-effect disclosure — that the target bin is created automatically if it doesn't exist — but says nothing about overwrite/duplicate handling, supported formats, permission requirements, or failure modes for unwritable paths.

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 no filler; the most important information (what is imported and where it lands) comes first, and the auto-create behavior is appended where it is most useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. However, for a 3-parameter write tool with zero schema documentation, the omission of the 'project' parameter's meaning and the bin_path default behavior leaves real gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It loosely explains 'paths' (files or folders, image sequences, movies) and hints at 'bin_path' via 'creating it if needed', but leaves 'project' entirely unexplained and gives no guidance on path format, whether globs are supported, or what the empty default for bin_path means.

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 concrete resource (files/folders as clips) and names the destination (a bin), plus the types of source material handled (image sequences, movies). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_bin or add_clip_to_track without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'creating it if needed' implies the tool is the entry point for bringing external media into a project, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over create_bin followed by other tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable from the name and sentence, not spelled out.

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