audio_import

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

Discloses that it is a long operation and that asset files are copied into the project, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing assets, permissions, or failure modes, leaving gaps in transparency given no annotations are provided.

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 concise and well-structured, using two clear sentences plus a parameter list. No fluff or redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool: what it does, the return value (GUID) and its purpose, the parameter details, and a note on duration. Lacks only minor details like error handling or prerequisites, but is generally complete for its simplicity.

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?

The single parameter file_path is thoroughly described: absolute path and supported file formats (.wav, .aiff, .flac, .mp3, .ogg). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic string type, covering all parameters fully.

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?

Clearly states it imports an audio file into the project as a reusable asset, and mentions returning a GUID for assignment, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sound_create or asset management.

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?

Does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions it is a long operation, but lacks comparative guidance such as 'use sound_create for immediate playback' or 'use this for reusable assets'.

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