apply_look

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose destructive scope ('Replaces an existing empty/same-named adjustment clip') and that the effect spans the entire timeline, but says nothing about permissions, undoability, or what happens to a non-empty clip with the same name.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and the timeline-wide scope front-loaded before the sequencing caveat.

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 two-optional-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, replacement semantics, and ordering. It still leaves the caller guessing about return value and about the `replace_existing` toggle's actual 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `name` default ('the style's default look') and implies `replace_existing` behavior via the replacement sentence, but the interaction between the two — e.g. what false does — is never clarified.

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 ('Add an adjustment clip with a saved look') and pins the scope ('over the whole timeline'), which separates it from per-clip effect tools like copy_effects and from apply_audio_style. It never explicitly names a sibling as the alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 real sequencing guidance: 'Run after cutting (or run fit_to_timeline after later cuts).' That tells the agent where this belongs in a workflow. It stops short of stating when *not* to use it or which sibling to prefer for per-clip looks.

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