capcut_create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: it copies version markers from a CapCut-made project so CapCut 9.x accepts the draft, and it defaults to dry-run. That is real value. It stops short of stating the write precondition (CapCut closed) in prose and does not mention naming collisions or failure modes.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and defaults, then the non-obvious CapCut-9.x rationale, then the dry-run caveat. No filler; every sentence carries a distinct fact an agent needs.

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 mutating file-system tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key defaults, the template requirement, and the dry-run workflow. It is nearly complete, though a note on the write precondition and what the dry-run plan returns would round it out.

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 57%, so the description needs to compensate, and it does: it supplies the canvas and fps defaults (1080x1920, 30 fps) for the three undocumented numeric params and explains the reasoning behind template_draft ('auto' default, version markers for CapCut 9.x). It leaves register_in_index unexplained beyond 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+resource: 'Create a new empty draft folder.' The 'empty' qualifier distinguishes it from add_* tools that populate drafts. However it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling capcut_register_draft, and the register_in_index parameter overlaps with that sibling's apparent purpose, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

The description implies it is a first-step tool via 'new empty draft' and 'Dry-run by default', which hints at a plan-then-write workflow. But it never states when to use this versus siblings like register_draft or make_short, nor any prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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