apply_lut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Applies a LUT') which implies a mutation, but doesn't describe whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, how it affects the clip, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and context. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's complexity (applying LUTs for color grading, a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like effects on the clip, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 all three parameters (clipId, lutPath, intensity) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining LUT file formats or intensity effects. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Applies') and resource ('Look-Up Table (LUT) to a clip'), and mentions the context ('color grading'). It distinguishes itself from generic color tools like 'color_correct' by specifying LUT application. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'apply_effect' which might be a sibling for similar operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'color_correct' or 'apply_effect', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a clip ID or LUT file availability. Usage is implied through the action but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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