resolve_set_grade

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the dry-run/confirm pattern (non-destructive by default) and the 'Live tier only' constraint, which are key behavioral traits. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but the provided info is sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives critical usage instructions. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 description is short and covers core aspects, but lacks details on return values (e.g., what the dry run plan contains) and assumes knowledge of 'Live tier'. Given 9 parameters and no output schema, more context would improve completeness.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add new parameter details but frames the dry_run and confirm parameters in a workflow context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as no significant value beyond schema.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'ASC CDL slope/offset/power/saturation on timeline clips', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'color_match' or 'resolve_apply_lut' which have different purposes.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'dry_run first, then confirm' and 'Live tier only', providing a clear workflow instruction and constraint. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or alternatives for other tiers.

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