capcut_add_cuts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the important traits: frame-grid snapping, dry-run default, srt_out never overwriting, cues falling inside cuts being dropped, and place_subtitles=false skipping burned-in captions. It does not describe the returned time map format or failure/partial-write behavior, and the 'CapCut must be closed' requirement lives only in the schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the text is a dense run-on of jargon ('the short cards', 'time map') and 'Dry-run by default' is stated twice, which wastes space. Sentences are long enough that the key constraint list is hard to scan.

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 23-parameter batch operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core semantics well: keep vs cut, subtitle placement and remapping, SRT output, dry-run. The gaps are the unexplained time-map return value and the write-precondition details, but the essential mental model is present.

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 70%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds real meaning only to a few (keep-entry shape and x/y/scale parity with capcut_set_clip, srt_out non-overwrite, place_subtitles, re-chunking) while leaving sub_color, sub_font_size, punch_words, min_gap_s, split_by, upper, volume and others unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb and resource: batch-place the keep ranges (or everything but the cut ranges) of one source file back to back on a track and return the time map. It also disambiguates from siblings by anchoring its transform semantics to capcut_set_clip and its re-chunking to capcut_add_subtitles, so an agent can tell it apart from capcut_remove_segment or capcut_add_clip.

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?

It gives operating context (dry-run by default, place_subtitles false to skip captions, omit srt_out to skip the file) and references sibling tools for parity, but never states when to choose this over a single-segment tool like capcut_remove_segment or what the prerequisite state is. Usage is implied rather than explicitly bounded.

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