resolve_import_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the two-phase commit pattern (dry_run then confirm) and explains the confirm parameter's role. It doesn't cover potential failure modes or whether imports are additive, but the core behavior is well described.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by workflow and usage context. Every sentence serves a clear purpose and earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential context: the two-phase workflow, usage timing relative to siblings, and tier restriction. It could be improved by describing what the dry_run plan looks like or error handling, but it is largely complete for typical usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by explaining the workflow context (dry_run first, then confirm) which complements the schema. It does not repeat parameter details but provides high-level guidance on how to use them together.

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 clearly states the action ('Import media into the project media pool') and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying to run before resolve_create_timeline / resolve_append_to_timeline and only when media is not already in the pool. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear workflow ('dry_run first, then confirm') and states when to use the tool ('when the media is not already in the pool'). It also mentions 'Live tier only' and suggests ordering relative to sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives.

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