import_mogrt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral side effects. It only states that the file is imported into a sequence, without mentioning whether this creates a new graphics clip, whether the file must exist and be accessible, what happens on error, or how the optional track indices behave.

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?

The description is a single sentence that gets straight to the point, with no filler or repeated schema information. It could be slightly more helpful by adding a usage hint or a note about the file path, but it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

The schema covers all parameter semantics, but there are no annotations and no output schema, so the description alone must clarify the overall behavior. It is adequate for a simple import operation, but it omits contextual details such as what distinguishes this from library-based MOGRT import and what a successful invocation returns or sets up on the timeline.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters clearly (absolute path, time in seconds, sequence ID, and default track indices). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the general intent, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Imports') and resource ('Motion Graphics Template (.mogrt) file') and the target ('into a sequence'), so an agent can tell what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool import_mogrt_from_library or get_mogrt_component, so it loses a point on differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_mogrt_from_library or add_text_overlay. The usage context is only implied by the description, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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