capcut_export_draft

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two safety-critical traits unprompted: 'Never overwrites' and 'Dry-run by default.' It omits that CapCut must be closed and the index-backup behavior, but those facts do appear in the parameter descriptions.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core action leads and the caveats follow. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and the skip condition, and the schema supplies the return-shape and precondition details. Reasonably complete, though the relationship to capcut_register_draft is left unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including dry_run's default and register_in_index's caveat. The description adds only a restatement of the dry-run default, which is the correct baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 compound verb (validate + copy) and resource (draft folder into CAPCUT_EXPORT_ROOT) plus the goal (open it in CapCut). It is clearly distinguishable from create_draft/add_clip siblings, though it never names the closely related capcut_register_draft it overlaps with.

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 an explicit when-not condition ('Not needed when CAPCUT_DRAFTS_ROOT already is the CapCut folder') and flags the dry-run default, which shapes invocation. It does not, however, route the agent between this tool and the sibling capcut_register_draft or explain the CapCut-closed precondition.

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