set_graphics_white_luminance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'set graphics white luminance' and labels the action as an 'expanded operation.' It does not explain what value is applied, whether the operation is destructive, what side effects occur, or what the user must have selected before calling it.

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 concise, but it mostly restates the tool name and adds the boilerplate phrase 'Premier Pro expanded operation,' which carries little informative weight. It is not bloated, but it also does not use its brevity to deliver additional value beyond the title.

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 mutating tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the operation actually does to the graphics white luminance and what context is required. The description fails to specify the target value, default behavior, or required selection, leaving an agent under-informed for correct 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is required. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage since there are no inputs to describe.

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 states a specific verb ('set') and a specific resource ('graphics white luminance'), making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It also contrasts with the sibling tool 'get_graphics_white_luminance', so an agent can distinguish the setter from the getter without inspecting further.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what state it expects, or which context it should be invoked in. The description does not mention prerequisites such as a selected graphic or any conditions that would favor this tool over other setter tools.

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