davinci_generate_and_install_lut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (synthesize and install) and specifies the target directory, which implies a filesystem write. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing LUTs, requiring application restart, affecting current project) or any prerequisites. This is moderately transparent but leaves significant gaps given the absence of annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with the primary action front-loaded. It lists presets in a compact, scannable line. There is no redundancy or fluff; every word 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?

This is a complex tool that writes to the filesystem and has side effects. The description fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., DaVinci Resolve installed and running), potential overwrite behavior, whether a restart is needed, or what the return value indicates. While an output schema exists, the description does not reference it or summarize what the tool returns. Given the tool's complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it without risking unintended consequences.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It lists six possible preset values (comic_noir, kodak_2383, etc.) but does not explicitly tie them to the preset_name parameter, and it completely ignores the size parameter. There is no explanation of what size means (e.g., LUT grid resolution) or its effect. The description compensates only partially for one parameter and not at all for the other.

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 synthesizes a 3D .cube LUT and installs it into a specific directory. It names the exact resource and action, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like davinci_apply_lut (which applies an existing LUT) and davinci_list_luts (which lists LUTs). No ambiguity remains.

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 implies usage (generate and install a new LUT) but never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, such as 'if you want to apply an existing LUT, use davinci_apply_lut' or 'if you only need to list LUTs, use davinci_list_luts.' The context is clear enough that an agent could infer, but explicit guidance is absent.

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