capcut_add_sticker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is dry-run by default and that the sticker must already exist in CapCut's cache, but it omits permission requirements, reversibility, failure modes, and the fact (buried in the schema) that writing requires CapCut to be closed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the prerequisite and the dry-run note. No filler, no repetition of the title, and each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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 an 11-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the decisive workflow facts (resource prerequisite, track, dry-run default, animation handoff). It is still thin on the remaining parameters and on what a dry-run versus real write returns, but the critical gaps are addressed.

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 only 27%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the resource_id alias ('sticker_id'), the sticker track, and the position/scale/rotation group, but leaves name, duration_s, start_s, x/y, and track defaults unexplained beyond the schema itself.

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 a CapCut sticker on a sticker track by resource_id'), plus the key attribute group (position/scale/rotation). It also distinguishes itself from the animation sibling by routing that concern to capcut_add_animation, so an agent can separate this from capcut_add_effect/capcut_add_animation without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('must have been added once in CapCut so it is in Cache/artistEffect') and names the follow-up tool for animation. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a direct contrast with the other 'add_*' siblings, so it is strong but not complete routing.

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