capcut_add_sound_effect

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Drops a transient sound effect') and the placement ('at an exact timeline timestamp'), but does not clarify potential side effects such as whether the effect replaces existing audio, whether it requires the project to be open, or whether it mutates the project permanently. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with examples that clarify the scope. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 straightforward add-operation with all parameters documented, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what kind of files to use, and where the effect lands. It does not explain error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., project existence), but those are common to sibling tools and not critical for this simple action.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it characterizes the SFX as 'transient' and mentions alignment with keyframes, but it does not elaborate on timestamp semantics or volume behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Drops'), a specific resource ('transient sound effect'), and provides examples (whoosh, pop, click, riser impact) that clearly distinguish it from adding full audio clips. It also mentions the key use case of aligning with visual keyframes or text pops, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: for short, transient effects at exact timestamps, and the examples suggest alignment with visual events. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like capcut_add_audio_clip or state conditions for choosing between them, leaving some inference to the agent.

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