capcut_add_sticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the sticker is added, but it does not explain timeline placement behavior, how 'auto_append' interacts with existing clips, what happens with track indexes, or failure behavior. For a mutating tool, this leaves too much unspecified.

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, active, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a single-purpose tool, though it sacrifices behavioral context that would make it more useful.

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?

With eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, this one-line description is not complete enough. It lacks guidance on where the sticker lands, how it behaves with auto_append, when to choose it over text or video tools, and what the agent should expect after the call succeeds or fails.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters and their defaults. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the resource type, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('adds'), a clear resource ('animated sticker or graphic element'), and a location ('project timeline'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as capcut_add_text, capcut_add_audio_clip, or capcut_add_video_clip.

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 use case is implied: use this tool when adding a sticker or graphic overlay to the timeline. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for similar visual overlays, such as capcut_add_text or capcut_add_subtitles.

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