capcut_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by stating the project is created as a draft and registered directly into CapCut Desktop. However, it does not disclose whether duplicate names are allowed, whether the desktop app must be running, or what side effects occur after creation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes only decision-relevant qualifiers: 'brand new', 'draft', and 'registered directly into CapCut Desktop'. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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 creation tool, the description captures the core outcome and desktop integration. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left without information about the return value, error conditions, or behavior when CapCut Desktop is not available.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description mentions canvas resolution and frame rate, which map to ratio/width/height and fps, but it adds no semantic detail 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 action ('creates'), a specific resource ('brand new CapCut project draft'), and key attributes (canvas resolution, frame rate, registered directly into CapCut Desktop). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like capcut_list_projects, capcut_get_project, or capcut_duplicate_project.

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 phrase 'brand new project draft' implies this tool is for starting from scratch, and the sibling list shows alternatives. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer it over duplicating an existing project or opening CapCut, nor does it state when not to use it.

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