capcut_copy_text_template

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: dry-run by default, fresh ids generated, new text optional, and can target same or different draft. Does not mention auth requirements or error conditions, but covers the critical mutation behavior well.

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?

Single dense sentence front-loads the core operation and includes key details without waste. Every clause earns its place, from source/destination to ID behavior to dry-run default.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and safety (dry-run default). Missing some behavioral context like what happens to the original template or potential side effects, but reasonably complete.

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 86%, so most parameters are documented in the schema. Description adds some semantic context about 'fresh ids' and 'optionally new text' but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or formats beyond what's in the 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 (copy), resource (text template), and scope constraints clearly: from an existing draft segment to a new time, same or another draft. This distinguishes it from siblings like capcut_add_text (creating new text) by emphasizing copying an existing template with fresh ids.

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 through 'CapCut already placed in a draft' and 'optionally new text', but does not explicitly state when to use this vs capcut_add_text or other text tools. No when-not guidance or prerequisites mentioned.

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