generate_lut

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is a 'free approximation' and not full color management, which is useful, but it omits details on file output behavior, overwrite semantics, path restrictions (e.g., allow_any_path), or potential failure modes.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose and key caveat are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output file format beyond '.cube', does not clarify the meaning of size or allow_any_path, and lacks guidance on expected usage patterns. The description is inadequate for an agent to call the tool confidently without opening the schema.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers exposure, contrast, saturation, and temperature, but leaves size, title, output_path, and allow_any_path unexplained. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool, especially security-relevant parameters like allow_any_path.

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 ('Generate'), a clear resource ('.cube 3D LUT'), and enumerates the creative parameters. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'apply_lut' by focusing on generation rather than application, and the caveat 'not DaVinci Resolve color management' further clarifies scope.

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 implies a use case (grading workflows with a free approximation) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'apply_lut' or when not to use it. It lacks direct routing or exclusion criteria.

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