set_lumetri_basic

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: Lumetri is added if missing, so the agent knows this can create an effect rather than only mutate existing values. It says nothing about what happens to parameters omitted in 'set' mode (reset to defaults vs. left untouched), reversibility, units/ranges, or permissions — the gaps that matter most for a destructive color mutation.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler; the action, the target, and the fallback side effect are all front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with a nested params object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin: it never states units or valid ranges for the ten correction values, nor how partial param objects behave in 'set' vs 'offset' mode. The most consequential missing piece — whether unspecified values are reset — leaves real ambiguity about the call's effect.

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 67% with clipIndex, videoTrack, sequenceId and sequenceName documented in-schema, so the baseline is ~3. The description's '(or offsets)' adds real meaning to the otherwise undocumented 'mode' enum, clarifying the two behaviors of the mode parameter that the schema only lists as bare values.

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 ('sets or offsets') and a specific resource ('Lumetri Basic Correction values of a clip'), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like color_correct, set_color_value, and apply_lut. It does not explicitly name the complementary reader get_lumetri_basic or explain the boundary with color_correct, but the resource is precise enough for selection.

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 parenthetical '(or offsets)' hints that a set-vs-offset mode exists and the schema confirms the 'mode' enum, but the description never says when to choose one over the other or when to prefer color_correct/apply_lut instead. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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