set_lumetri

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job: it discloses the partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you pass change') and the limitation that the creative Look cannot be set by script, only its intensity. It does not explain error handling for clips missing the effect, but it does state the prerequisite, which is the most critical behavioral constraint.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second explains partial-update behavior, and the third covers the prerequisite and scripting limitation. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 (11 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential contextual points: prerequisites, partial updates, and the Look intensity limitation. It does not describe the return value beyond 'read them back' or enumerate all parameters, but the most important information for correct use is present.

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 low (27%), and the description adds limited parameter-specific meaning. It clarifies that the numeric fields correspond to Lumetri Basic Correction values and that look_intensity only controls intensity of an already-selected Look, which is useful. However, it does not explain units, ranges, or default values for most parameters, relying on the self-explanatory property names.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Lumetri Basic Correction values on a clip'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like grade_clips or apply_effect. It also states the partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you pass change') and mentions the read-back capability, making the tool's scope 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 gives a clear prerequisite: the clip must already have a Lumetri Color effect, and explicitly directs users to apply_effect to add one. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like grade_clips, but it provides enough context for an agent to decide when this tool is applicable.

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