Create color grade

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

The description fully discloses the internal workings: it uses a Level TOP for lift/gamma/gain, an HSV Adjust TOP for saturation/hue, a Lookup TOP for LUT, and a Null TOP output. It explains parameter mappings (e.g., 'brightness1' vs 'gain') and the standalone test gradient behavior. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's 'build a ... stage' (non-destructive creation). No contradictions.

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 concise yet comprehensive. It front-loads the primary purpose, then efficiently details internal components, parameter behaviors, and special cases (with/without input_path, optional LUT). Every sentence serves a purpose; no wasted words. Structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the entire node chain, parameter mappings, optional LUT, source handling, and output (Null TOP). It covers all behavioral aspects an agent would need to invoke and understand the tool correctly.

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 high (90%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: it explains the overall node chain, that the tools 'drives' each TOP parameter, and that live knobs are exposed. It also clarifies the Ramp TOP test gradient behavior. This extra context raises the score to 4.

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's purpose: 'Build a colour-grading / LUT finishing stage over a source — the 'make the final output look graded' tool for VJ sets.' It uses specific verbs ('Build', 'applies', 'exposed') and identifies the resource (colour-grading stage). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like create_glitch or create_kaleidoscope by explicitly labeling itself as a grading tool.

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 how to use the tool, explaining behaviors with and without input_path (pulling source vs. using test gradient) and optional LUT. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The usage is implied through the detailed explanation of its function, which is adequate.

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