import_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: downloads are size-capped, an existing id of the same kind is replaced, empty `kind` triggers detection, and evidence assets start with a full-picture box until edited. It does not describe return values, permissions, or error behavior for failed downloads or copies.

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 front-loaded with the core action and is dense with useful specifics. Parenthetical clauses make it slightly run-on, but every sentence adds information about supported sources, kinds, replacement, and evidence behavior.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most operational behavior well. However, it omits what the tool returns, how `project` affects the operation, and what happens on failure, so it is not fully complete.

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 compensate. It explains `source` as a local file or http(s) media URL, `kind` as image/video/audio/evidence with empty meaning auto-detect, and `id` as replaceable if the same kind exists. The required `project` parameter is never explained, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 verb and resource: copy a local file or download an http(s) media file into assets/ and register it as asset `id`. It also names the supported kinds and mentions music import. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling `assets` tool, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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: importing local files, downloading remote media, importing music you are allowed to use, and supporting `evidence` screenshots. It does not state explicit exclusions or point to alternative tools for related operations, which keeps it short of a 5.

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