cdl_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output format (standard ASC CDL v1.01) but omits critical write behavior such as whether the file is overwritten, created if missing, or any failure/error conditions. This is a significant gap for a file-writing tool.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary action and target. Every sentence adds relevant detail (format and import compatibility), with no wasted words.

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 has only one required parameter, a complete schema, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the core purpose and output format. It could be more complete by addressing overwrite behavior, but overall it is sufficient for a simple write operation.

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 has 100% coverage with all six parameters individually described. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('a single ASC CDL correction to a .cdl file'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like cdl_read and color_set_cdl by specifying the file-based output format.

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 phrase 'that Resolve and other tools can import as a primary grade' implies usage context (export for import elsewhere), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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