Apply LUT

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral details beyond annotations: it creates a container, exposes Strength and Bypass controls, has fallback logic for OCIO vs lookup, and explains Python parsing for .cube files without OCIO. This fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement first, followed by functional details. Every sentence adds value. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise without losing information. Good front-loading.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple file formats, fallback logic, exposed controls), the description covers all essential behaviors: how different file types are handled, the role of each parameter, and the result (container with controls). No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains the tool's output and side effects.

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% with well-described parameters. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the purpose of source_path (grade vs standalone) and providing context for the prefer parameter (auto, ocio, lookup). This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool applies a colour LUT to an existing TOP inside a baseCOMP. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on LUT application without confusion with other apply tools.

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 on when to use the tool and how to use it: passing source_path for grading an existing TOP or omitting it for standalone preview. It explains the preferred method for different file types, but does not explicitly compare to siblings like apply_glsl_top_mapping. The guidance is clear for the intended purpose.

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