Apply LUT

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive. Description adds rich behavior: creates a self-contained baseCOMP, prefers OCIO, falls back to Movie File In + Lookup TOP, parses .cube in Python, exposes Strength/Bypass controls, and handles missing source_path with a grey Constant TOP. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 dense but well-structured: main action first, then format preferences, fallback, controls, and usage variants. Slightly long, but every sentence adds useful information; not wasteful.

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 complex tool with 9 params and no output schema, the description covers the key workflow: input formats, branch selection, fallback logic, source handling, and exposed controls. It gives an agent enough context to decide and invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It does mention source_path and Strength/Bypass, but these already appear in the schema. No significant added meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Apply a colour Look-Up Table (LUT) to an existing TOP inside a self-contained baseCOMP.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_color_grade by targeting LUT application with specific file-format handling.

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?

Provides clear context: applies LUT to an existing TOP, with fallback behavior for OCIO vs image LUTs. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so not a 5.

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