Apply LUT

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: internal COMP wiring, OCIO parsing, fallback paths, crossfade blending, and standalone preview. It reveals limitations like TD wire constraints and parameter bindings, offering rich context.

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 a single dense paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, fallback logic, parameter usage, and defaults. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but each sentence contributes meaningfully.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description explains core behavior, parameter interactions, and standalone mode. It lacks explicit output specification but the implicit result (container with LUT chain) is clear enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why parameters work as they do (e.g., source_path uses Select TOP, strength drives Cross TOP crossfade, prefer branch logic). It provides semantic context beyond schema labels.

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 verb 'Apply' and resource 'LUT to an existing TOP' in a specific context (self-contained baseCOMP). It distinguishes from siblings by detailing LUT format handling and fallback behavior, which is unique among similar 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 clear context on when to use the tool (e.g., with a LUT file, optionally with a source TOP) and explains the OCIO vs lookup fallback mechanism. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements but covers main use cases well.

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