set_captions

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that captions are generated from asset transcripts, follow edits automatically, and that burn_in=False exports a sidecar .srt. It does not explain mutation effects, whether a transcript is required, or what happens when captions are disabled.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. Three sentences cover the core action, generation behavior, and burn-in distinction without unnecessary repetition.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the main purpose and burn_in behavior but leaves most styling and control parameters unexplained.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for all six parameters. It only explains burn_in=False as producing a sidecar .srt instead of drawing captions; enabled, project, font_size, max_chars, and max_duration receive no added meaning.

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 specific action and resource: turning captions on or off. It is distinct from text tools like add_text, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives it differs from.

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 'Turn captions on/off' implies when the tool is used, and the note about generated transcripts provides context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus related tools such as add_text, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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