capcut_add_transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that it replaces an existing transition and that duration is capped at half the shorter clip, but omits auth/permission needs, whether the prior transition is discarded silently, and ordering constraints. The dry-run note largely duplicates 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?

A tight, front-loaded passage whose sentences all earn their place: action, location, identifier, constraint, default behavior in order. No filler.

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?

Adequate for a mutation tool: behavior, dry-run default, and the key numeric constraint are present, and the schema fills in the dry_run write prerequisite (CapCut closed). It falls short only on the unaddressed name/track params and any post-write confirmation detail.

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?

At 57% schema coverage the description adds real meaning: it annotates start_s as the clip boundary before the cut and gives a concrete reason to pass resource_id, plus the 'half the shorter clip' constraint for duration_s. name and track remain unexplained in both places.

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 (add/replace), resource (transition), precise location ('the cut after the video segment at start_s'), and the identifying key (resource_id). An agent can distinguish this cleanly from siblings like capcut_add_effect, capcut_add_filter, and capcut_add_animation.

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?

Implies usage via the location semantics and notes 'Add (or replace)' and 'Dry-run by default', but never states when to prefer this over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. Context is present but no explicit routing guidance.

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