importAsset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the import formats and the optional layer-adding side effect, but says nothing about project-state mutation, whether re-importing duplicates footage, overwrite behavior, or undo semantics for what is fundamentally a write operation.

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 leading with the verb and the format list, then the optional layer behavior. Efficient, though the long format enumeration is dense; it is not bloated.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers formats and the two operating modes but omits behavioral context (error handling on missing files, re-import behavior, return value). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 every parameter (name, scale, compName, filePath, isThreeD, position, sequence, convertToShape) is already documented in the schema. The description only touches compName's effect ('add as a layer in a composition') and adds no format/syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Import') plus resource ('assets into AE project'), with an explicit enumeration of supported formats (.obj/.gltf/.glb, images, SVG/AI, video, audio) and the optional layer-creation mode. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like createSolidLayer or create3DLayer.

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 description implies the use case (bring external media into the project, optionally as a layer) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternatives. The optional-layer phrasing hints at the two modes but does not tell the agent which sibling to prefer or when.

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