capcut_add_viral_caption

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses specific visual behaviors such as -1.0 kerning, 26/26 diffuse ambient shadow, power word scaling/color contrast, and optional Quad Ease hover-up keyframes. However, it does not clarify operational side effects like whether a new text track is created, whether an existing caption is modified, or whether an open project is required.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose before enumerating specific stylistic behaviors. It earns its place, though the heavy use of hyphenated jargon reduces readability slightly.

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?

The tool is complex with 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description explains the aesthetic configuration well but omits usage context, prerequisites, alternative selection guidance, and expected result information. It is adequate for understanding what styling will be applied, but not fully complete for confident invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some conceptual color by mentioning custom fonts, power word contrast, and hover-pop keyframes, matching parameters like font_family, power_words, accent_color, and enable_hover_pop, but it does not materially improve on the schema's already thorough parameter descriptions.

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 ('Injects') and identifies the resource ('Aeovisuals-calibrated viral typography'), making it clear that this tool adds a stylized caption. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like capcut_add_text and capcut_add_subtitles by the explicit viral-typography styling, though it relies on jargon rather than a plain statement like 'adds a caption.'

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 choose this tool over capcut_add_text or capcut_add_subtitles, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the name and styling terms, so an agent is left to infer when 'viral typography' is appropriate.

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