set_cdl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires a valid node index, what happens to existing CDL values, or any side effects. This leaves the agent underinformed about the tool's behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include critical detail without losing conciseness, such as clarifying the string format.

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 absence of an output schema, annotations, and schema descriptions, the description must provide comprehensive guidance. It fails to explain what 'node' means, how to find it, error conditions, or the effect of the saturation parameter. The tool has 5 parameters and no return value described, leaving significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 add meaning. It explains that slope, offset, and power should be 'R G B' strings, hinting at the expected format (e.g., '1.0 1.0 1.0'). Saturation is mentioned but not explained. Node_index remains unclear. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 applies CDL values (slope, offset, power) as strings to a node on the current item. The verb 'apply' and resource 'CDL' are specific, and the context of 'node on the current item' is given, making it distinguishable from siblings like set_lut. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar tools such as set_clip_color, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_lut or set_clip_color. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage context from the description alone, which is insufficient.

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