import_edl

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does: this tool does not perform an import; it reports unavailability and explains why. It also notes the broader 'dialog-safe' design constraint. There are no hidden side effects or false expectations about actually importing an EDL.

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 concise sentences front-load the essential fact that EDL import is unavailable, then provide the reason and the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or 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 one-parameter stub tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it states what the tool does, why, and what to use instead. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to interpret its failure.

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% for the single filePath parameter, so the schema already documents it sufficiently. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the fact that the operation will not succeed, which is acceptable under the schema-heavy baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool's real function: it reports that CMX 3600 EDL import is unavailable in this MCP server. It names the resource (CMX 3600 EDL import), the verb (reports unavailable), and differentiates itself from the preferred sibling import_fcp_xml, so an agent cannot mistake it for an actual import tool.

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?

It gives clear usage context: EDL import would trigger an interactive Premiere dialog that blocks CEP, so this tool only reports the limitation. It explicitly directs the agent to use import_fcp_xml for unattended timeline interchange instead, satisfying the when/when-not/alternative requirement.

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