capcut_add_video_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that media metadata is 'automatically probed', which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the schema. However, it does not mention mutation side effects, reversibility, or required project state. Given the lack of annotations, this is a minimal but not complete disclosure.

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 sentences with no redundant wording. The core action and a key behavioral note (metadata probing) are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters, but all are covered by the schema, the description is adequate for invocation. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it (e.g., vs. adding audio/text), and there is no mention of expected output or errors. For a mutation tool with no annotations, a bit more context would be helpful, but it's not severely incomplete.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond that. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and this is appropriately scored.

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 tool's action: 'Adds a video or image file to a CapCut video track.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from audio/text tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like capcut_add_audio_clip, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites (e.g., project must be open, file must exist). Siblings like capcut_add_audio_clip or capcut_add_text are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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