match_color

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 tool mutates Lumetri exposure/temperature/tint on the clip or an adjustment layer, that it works iteratively, and that it returns a measurement log. It stops short of warning about overwriting an existing grade or permission requirements, but the mutation profile is reasonably clear.

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?

Two tight sentences with the mechanism front-loaded, no filler, and the return value noted last. The 'Scriptable Apply Match.' lead is slightly redundant but acts as a useful identifier; overall very efficient.

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 12-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core mechanism and the returned log but omits iteration behavior, cross-sequence reference handling, and track-selection details. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by tying applyTo to 'clip itself or adjustment layer above it' and clarifying the skin/midtone luma-and-warmth target (relating to region/matchTint), but it leaves maxIterations, refSequenceName, and the track parameters unexplained beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (matches), the resource (target clip to reference clip), and the exact mechanism (iteratively adjusting Lumetri exposure, temperature and tint) until a defined criterion is met. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like color_correct, apply_lut, or measure_frame_color, which don't perform reference-based iterative matching.

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 conveys the general scenario (matching a target to a reference) and even notes the clip-vs-adjustment-layer placement, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as color_correct, apply_lut, or measure_frame_color, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the mechanism rather than explicitly guided.

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