Adjust curves

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond the annotations: points are sorted and validated, and ffmpeg silently ignores malformed curves. It also hints at the job-based nature ('before the job runs'). Annotations are all false, so the description adds substantial safety-relevant context.

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 primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The second sentence is dense with useful details about coordinates and validation, with no filler.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested encode options, output schema present), the description covers the essential curve-specific behavior and the preset/points conflict. It doesn't explain that the tool re-encodes, but the EncodeOptions schema makes that implicit. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 50%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the coordinate system for control points (0..1 input/output) and the preset/points exclusivity. This helps understand red/green/blue/master parameters. Encode options are described in the schema's nested object, reducing the need for repetition.

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 'Apply a tone curve, either a named preset or your own control points,' which provides a specific verb and resource (tone curve) and differentiates it from siblings like apply_lut or color_grade. The mention of presets and control points further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 clear context: 'Give a preset or points, not both' is an explicit exclusion. It also explains that points are sorted/validated, which implies expected usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like apply_lut or color_grade, so it lacks full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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