capcut_insert_preset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful context: it reads a local preset store governed by CAPCUT_PRESETS_ROOT (defaulting to the CapCut Mac container) and that it is dry-run by default. It does not describe what the write does to existing tracks/clips, error behavior when the preset name is missing, or lock/permission requirements (the 'CapCut must be closed' constraint appears only in the schema's dry_run description).

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?

Two dense sentences with the action front-loaded and the environment/dry-run caveats trailing. Minor redundancy with the schema's dry_run default, but nothing gratuitous.

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?

A disk-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the preset source and the dry-run safeguard, which is the core of what an agent needs, but it omits what the plan/response contains and any side effects on the existing timeline, leaving gaps for a write operation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents draft, track, preset and dry_run. The description only reinforces start_s ('at start_s') and the preset source; it adds no format, naming, or resolution semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Insert'), a specific resource ('one of CapCut's saved elements'), and the resulting artifact ('as a compound clip at start_s'). The resource is unique among siblings (add_sticker, add_effect, compound_clip all differ), though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, capcut_compound_clip.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource: reach for this when you want a saved preset re-inserted into a draft. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the closest alternative, capcut_compound_clip, so the agent must infer the routing.

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