capcut_export_srt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well for the key traits: "Never overwrites" and "Dry-run by default" tell the agent the operation is safe-by-default. It omits that writing requires CapCut to be closed (left to the schema) and what a dry-run plan contains, keeping it short of a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded before the caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information (purpose, non-overwrite, 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 4-param export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important safety and default behaviors. It is somewhat thin on preconditions (draft existence, CapCut closure) and return content, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning the schema lacks for the track parameter: it explains that the track defaults to "subtitles" and that exactly one track is targeted. Dry-run-by-default is also reinforced, though draft and out_path semantics are left entirely to 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 (write) and resource (cues of one text track as an .srt file), and clarifies the applicability (YouTube closed captions). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like capcut_export_chapters and capcut_export_draft, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"e.g. for YouTube closed captions" gives one concrete use context, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to prefer this over capcut_export_chapters/capcut_export_draft or any prerequisites, so routing 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.