Apply Lumetri Color (best-effort)

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context: 'best-effort', 'via QE', version fragility warning. It does not contradict annotations. The description enriches behavioral understanding beyond the annotation alone, though it could mention the destructive nature explicitly.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The note and usage guidance are additional but relevant. It is not overly verbose, though the note could be condensed. Overall, it maintains good structure and clarity without waste.

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 no output schema, the description mentions 'report its parameters' indicating return value. The tool is simple with two parameters. It explains the context of version fragility and alternatives. While it doesn't detail return format or parameter selection logic, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and scope.

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 has 2 parameters (videoTrack, clipIndex) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters or their meaning (e.g., videoTrack is integer >=1, clipIndex >=0). It mentions 'add to a clip' but provides no detail on how to identify the clip via these parameters, leaving ambiguity. For a tool with no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 clearly states 'Add a Lumetri Color effect to a clip (via QE) and report its parameters.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('Lumetri Color effect'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'premiere_add_effect' which is more generic. The title also includes 'best-effort' hinting at reliability.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to attach Lumetri so you can grade by hand, or pair with premiere_run_extendscript to set specific params.' It also warns against using it for reliable preset grades ('bake it into the Remotion render instead') and notes version fragility. This clearly tells when to use and when not.

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