import_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses server-side execution via yt-dlp, residential proxies, and ffmpeg, hosted storage output, and async behavior. It lacks details on failure modes or rate limits but is transparent about the core workflow.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: first states the purpose and output, second explains the technical implementation, third covers async behavior and the optional transcript. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a 7-parameter async tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use case, direct link result, jobId polling, and optional transcript. It does not discuss cost or error handling, but is fairly complete for an import operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of meaning by calling out includeTranscript, but it does not elaborate on audio/video quality defaults or transcript language beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Download the video/audio at any URL' and lists supported sites (YouTube, TikTok, X, 1000+). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling check/status tools.

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?

Explains the async pattern: 'returns a jobId immediately; poll check_import for the result.' It also mentions the optional transcript option, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling transcribe_media tool for transcription-only jobs.

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