resolve_load_color_version

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 states the operation ('switch') and the version_type meaning (local/remote), but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether the change is persistent, what happens if the named version does not exist, or any permission requirements). The description is terse and omits error behavior.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a compact argument list. Every word earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has an output schema (though not shown here), so the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks essential context about error conditions, preconditions (e.g., ensuring the clip has a color version), and the effect on the current timeline state. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent to discover at runtime.

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?

The input schema provides only types and titles, with no descriptions (schema coverage 0%). The description adds meaningful semantic detail: it explains that 'name' is the color version name and clarifies that version_type is 0 for local (default) and 1 for remote. This goes beyond the schema and compensates for the lack of structured descriptions.

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 ('Switch to') and resource ('color version by name on the clip at the playhead'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'resolve_create_color_version' and 'resolve_list_color_versions' by implying an existing version is loaded. The scope is precise and actionable.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the clip must have color versions) or contrast with create/list operations. The agent must infer that 'switch' implies an existing version, but no alternative routing is provided.

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