sync_color_layers

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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting: it discloses that ALL Lumetri Color parameter groups are copied onto other instances, meaning existing grading on those layers is overwritten, and adds the safety rule that different sources never affect each other. It omits failure modes (missing master, no matching name) and permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 core action (make colour layers identical again after grading one) and then supplies the necessary copy scope, master rules, and isolation guarantee. It is dense but each sentence contributes; minor structural improvement possible.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, exact copied parameters, master-selection logic, defaults, and source isolation. It leaves return/result behavior and error conditions unstated, which is a modest gap for a mutation tool.

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, but the description adds meaningful master-selection semantics: "a clip name + index or the instance under the playhead; default the first instance of each name." This clarifies how name and fromPlayhead interact beyond the schema field text.

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: makes colour layers identical by copying all Lumetri Color parameters between instances of the same "Màu <source>" name. It clearly distinguishes from generic effect-copy siblings by naming the exact scope (same-name layers within a scene).

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?

Gives a clear trigger — use it "after grading one of them" — and explains the default master-selection behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives like copy_effect_values or copy_effects_between_clips, so a 4 rather than 5.

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