resolve_apply_lut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the page requirement and the fact that it targets the playhead clip, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the node graph irreversibly, or what the output/return value is. With no annotations, this is a moderate 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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and target. The example LUT paths and Args section are useful and not redundant. It could be slightly tighter, but every sentence 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what it does, where it operates (Color page), and how to specify the LUT. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema likely covers that. It also doesn't mention failure modes (e.g., invalid LUT path), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains lut_path as 'LUT file path (relative to Resolve's LUT directory or absolute)' and node_index as 'Node to apply LUT to (1-based, default: 1)', adding meaning beyond the bare schema types. It also gives example LUT paths. This is strong compensation, though it could clarify the default node behavior more.

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 ('Apply'), a specific resource ('a LUT to a clip's node graph'), and a precise target ('the clip at the playhead'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_get_lut or resolve_export_lut, which are about LUT retrieval/export rather than application.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Must be on the Color page') and provides concrete example LUT paths, which helps the agent know what values to pass. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_create_color_version, but the context is clear enough for a color-grading operation.

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