davinci_apply_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 only states the action (apply or synthesize) without revealing side effects, required setup, error conditions, or whether the operation modifies the node destructively. The 'Antigravity look preset' synthesis is particularly opaque, and no details about the effect on the clip or node are given.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the primary verb and object. However, the disjunctive 'or synthesizes an Antigravity look preset' adds confusion and reduces clarity, but the overall length is appropriate for the level of detail. It is not verbose, so it earns a high conciseness score despite the ambiguity.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, and an ambiguous alternative action), the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use the synthesis mode, what happens to the clip, or any prerequisites. While an output schema exists (not shown), the description still lacks essential context for correct invocation, such as the need for a selected clip or how node_index interacts with the timeline.

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% (the schema only provides names and types like 'lut_path' as a string, no descriptions). The description does not elaborate on any parameter—it does not explain what lut_path should reference, how clip_index identifies a clip, or the meaning of node_index. This is a critical gap since the schema offers no semantic information and the description adds none.

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 clear primary action: 'Applies a 3D LUT (.cube) to a clip node.' This distinguishes it from siblings like davinci_list_luts (listing LUTs) and davinci_generate_and_install_lut (creating LUTs). However, the appended alternative 'or synthesizes an Antigravity look preset' introduces ambiguity—it is unclear what triggers this synthesis or how it differs from applying a LUT, slightly diminishing clarity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a clip must be loaded) or when the synthesis path applies. Sibling tools like davinci_generate_and_install_lut exist but no comparison or routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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