capcut_add_text

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that writes are dry-run by default and defines the x/y coordinate space, which are real behavioral facts. However it omits that the write path requires CapCut to be closed and says nothing about what a dry-run plan returns.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the most important constraint (dry-run default) is placed prominently at the end of a short block. Slightly clipped, but every sentence earns its place.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves several gaps: units for timing parameters, the CapCut-must-be-closed precondition, and any hint of what is returned. It is adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 20% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for x/y ('-1..1 from the canvas centre') and reinforces the dry_run default, but leaves start_s/duration_s units, color format, font_size, and track semantics to the raw schema.

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+resource ('Add a text overlay ... to a draft') and gives concrete examples of the content type (title, hook, CTA). It is distinguishable from capcut_add_subtitles and capcut_style_text, though the description never names those siblings or clarifies the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied (attach text overlays to a draft) and the dry-run default is called out, which is useful for knowing the safe path. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of prerequisites for real writes, and no routing to alternative text tools.

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