capcut_generate_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the output is a fast proxy preview .mp4, uses ffmpeg, and avoids GUI export. However, it does not state whether the project is modified, what the tool returns (e.g., a rendered file path), or where the preview is written when output_path is omitted.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place: it states the action, the output format, the target resource, the rendering mechanism, and the key benefit over GUI export.

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 schema covers parameters and the description gives the core use case, so invocation is mostly clear. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves unspecified the return value, the default output destination when output_path is absent, and whether the CapCut app must be open or the project loaded for the render to succeed.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as default resolution or default output location, but it does not need to since the schema documents all five parameters clearly.

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 names a specific verb ('Renders'), a specific resource ('proxy preview video (.mp4) of a CapCut project'), and a mechanism ('using ffmpeg'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by focusing on preview rendering rather than project management, media info, or editing operations.

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 implies a clear use case: generate a fast preview without performing a full GUI export. It provides context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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