adjust_colors

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

There are no annotations, so the description is the only source for behavioral disclosure. It states the adjustment effect but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, mutates the clip in place, or returns a new asset, and gives no details on ordering of brightness vs contrast.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the essential effect. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 annotations and the simple but mutating nature of the tool, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It omits usage context and behavioral side effects, although the output schema exists and parameters are partially self-documented.

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 schema already documents contrast and brightness ranges with 67% coverage. The description adds no new semantics beyond restating the parameter names in prose; clip_id's role is not explained, but the schema's coverage makes the description adequate.

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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Adjust') and resource ('brightness/contrast'), distinguishing it from color-space conversion (to_grayscale) and other edits. However, it doesn't explicitly connect to 'colors' or mention the clip context, so it is clear but not fully differentiating within the sibling set.

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 provided about when to use adjust_colors versus grayscale or other color tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references in the description.

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