capcut_add_adjustment_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: the layer affects every track below it (a side-effect not in the schema) and dry-run is the default behavior. It still omits how a write behaves, whether the layer is removable/reversible, and what the dry-run output contains, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence carries purpose, options, impact scope, and the dry-run default with essentially no filler. The parentheticals are dense but each earns its place; the only minor cost is that the trailing default note is somewhat buried.

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 7-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope of effect, and defaults but leaves the 'track' parameter, the adjust object's structure, and the dry-run/commit result semantics unexplained. Adequate to attempt a call, but not complete enough to predict outcomes.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains lut, the time-range parameters implicitly, and delegates 'adjust' semantics to capcut_set_clip's key/UI-value convention, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about the 'track' parameter or the format/units of start_s and duration_s, so the undocumented half of the schema remains unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (add an adjustment layer, CapCut 'Ajustar') and pins down scope (over a time range) plus optional decorations (basic adjust, LUT). It also names the exact behavioral distinction from sibling operations by noting it 'affects every track below it,' and cross-references capcut_set_clip for key semantics, so an agent can separate it from capcut_add_filter or capcut_add_effect.

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 conveys that the tool is a range-spanning, track-below grade and that it dry-runs by default, which implies it is for global looks over an interval rather than a single clip. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over capcut_add_filter, capcut_add_effect, or per-clip capcut_set_clip, nor does it state the precondition for committing changes beyond what the parameter schema says.

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