add_color_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the layer goes on its own top track, that Lumetri Color is pre-attached, and that a project Adjustment Layer item is imported from a template when absent because Premiere has no scripting call for it. It omits reversibility/undo behavior and whether an existing colour layer is reused or duplicated.

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?

Front-loads the scope in the first clause and orders the alternative and the mechanism after it. The second sentence partially restates the first ("Lays a colour-grading adjustment layer over the whole sequence (or a time range)"), which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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 six-parameter, all-optional mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the mechanics an agent needs: track placement, the template-import fallback, and the grading inputs. What the call returns and whether repeated calls stack layers is left unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning for the nested `basic` object by enumerating the accepted Lumetri Basic keys (temperature through vibrance) where the schema only shows an example, and it ties start/end to the "whole sequence or a time range" framing, but that is incremental rather than decisive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — lays a colour-grading adjustment layer over the whole sequence or a time range — and immediately characterizes it as "a global look." The scope contrast with add_scene_color_layers makes the tool distinguishable from its nearest sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for per-scene work (add_scene_color_layers) and the condition that selects it, plus the intended editorial context ("the colour layer an editor puts above the cut"). It does not, however, differentiate from other adjacent siblings such as add_adjustment_layer, add_color_matte, or sync_color_layers, leaving slight ambiguity.

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