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 for a mutation-like import operation. It says the files go into the project and returns nodeId values, but it does not disclose duplicate handling, whether files are linked or copied, failure behavior, or permission requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary explanation.

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?

The schema is fully described and the description usefully states that nodeId values are returned despite there being no output schema. However, for a tool that mutates the project by adding media, it lacks enough behavioral context around duplicates, errors, and alternatives to be considered 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 100%, and the schema already documents filePaths, targetBinPath, and importAsNumberedStills clearly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: import media files into the project, with concrete examples such as video, audio, images, .psd, .aep, and .prproj. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings like import_sequences, import_ae_comps, or import_captions.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_sequences or import_ae_comps. It also omits prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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