resolve_export_lut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it does disclose the core side effect by specifying an output .cube file at an absolute path. It does not discuss overwrite behavior, prerequisites for the current clip, or failure modes, but the main write action is clear enough for a straightforward export operation.

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 compact parts: a front-loaded purpose sentence and a terse args list. There is no filler or repetition beyond what is needed to document the parameters.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is nearly complete. The main residual gap is that 'current clip' is not defined and no usage alternative is given, but the operation and its inputs are sufficiently clear.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by defining output_path as an absolute .cube path and enumerating the allowed export_type values (17pt, 33pt default, 65pt). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types and default.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (export), a specific resource (LUT), and a source scope (current clip's grade). This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like resolve_apply_lut and resolve_get_lut, which involve applying or retrieving rather than creating a .cube file.

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 conveys when the operation is relevant (exporting a LUT from the current grade), but it gives no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusion conditions. It does not mention that resolve_apply_lut and resolve_get_lut are for other LUT operations, so usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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