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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the genuinely useful point that the tool only emits instructions and 'opens nothing by itself,' which tells the agent it must follow up with browser tools. However, it never explains how the target member and desired role are conveyed given zero parameters, nor what the returned steps look like beyond 'screens, buttons, fields,' and the cryptic 'CapCut's official API: Partly.' adds ambiguity.

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 core behavior is front-loaded and easy to extract, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler, and the trailing 'CapCut's official API: Partly.' is a cryptic fragment that costs attention without conveying actionable meaning.

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 zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape of the output (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the follow-up browser workflow. It leaves an important gap: with no parameters, how the specific role and member are communicated to produce tailored steps is unexplained.

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 declares zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description adds nothing about parameters and doesn't need to, though an agent may wonder how role/member inputs are supplied when there is no schema surface at all.

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 and resource (set member role in the user's CapCut account) and then clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by positioning them as the execution path, though it never names close siblings like capcut_transfer_editing_permission or capcut_invite_members_to_a_space as alternatives.

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?

It gives clear workflow context: call this to get the on-screen steps, then carry them out with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CapCut Cloud Browser. What's missing is any when-not guidance or comparison to adjacent role/permission tools, so an agent must infer the selection boundary itself.

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