capcut_add_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that text is added, but does not reveal whether existing text tracks are modified, whether the project must be open, what happens if track_index is out of range, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The verb is front-loaded and the three overlay types are listed compactly, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It explains neither when to use the tool relative to siblings nor behavioral side effects, even though the schema covers parameter details. An agent would need to infer usage context from the parameter names alone.

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 12 parameters. The description adds a light semantic layer by grouping them under 'customizable title, lower-third, or text overlay', but it does not elaborate on any specific parameter meanings beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('text track') and names three concrete output types (title, lower-third, text overlay), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like capcut_add_subtitles or capcut_add_viral_caption, which likely also add text elements.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as capcut_add_subtitles or capcut_add_viral_caption. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues to help an agent pick the right text-adding tool.

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