color_set_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 disclosing behavior. It only states the action without mentioning side effects such as overwriting existing LUTs, requiring an existing node, or behavior on invalid LUT paths. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately minimal for a tool with rich schema coverage.

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 a 5-parameter schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for identifying the operation but lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether it replaces the existing LUT) and prerequisite information. The schema covers parameters, and an output schema exists, but the description still leaves some gaps in operational understanding.

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 descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it mentions a 'LUT file' and 'specific node' but doesn't elaborate on path format, node indexing, or track selection beyond what schema already provides.

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 'apply' with a clear resource (LUT file) and target (node on a timeline item), distinguishing it from siblings like color_get_lut (read) and color_export_lut (export). It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 the usage scenario (applying a LUT to a node) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings like color_get_lut exist for reading, but the description doesn't reference them, leaving exclusion guidance implicit.

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