optimize_look

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose what 'optimize' actually changes, whether the look is modified in place or a new one is returned, whether existing adjustments are overwritten, or what permissions are required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundancy. It is tightly written, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, and how it differs from related look tools, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents lookId, projectId, and optimizationGoals with their enum values and default. The description's 'for specific goals' adds only marginal framing beyond the schema and does not explain how goals interact or affect the optimization. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Optimize') and resource ('an existing look'), and adds scope via 'for specific goals', so it is clear and not tautological. It stops short of distinguishing itself from sibling tools like update_look, generate_look, or optimize_cue_timing, which is why it is a 4 rather than a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_look, generate_look, or optimize_cue_timing. The phrase 'for specific goals' hints at the optimizationGoals parameter but gives no when/when-not conditions or prerequisites.

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