capcut_make_short

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that draft is 'filled in place' (in-place mutation of an existing project) and that the tool is 'Dry-run by default', but omits other material traits that live only in the schema (CapCut must be closed to write, register_in_index backs up root_meta_info first) and says nothing about error handling or reversibility.

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?

For a 38-parameter tool the description is compact and front-loads the core purpose before drilling into optional groups. It is a single dense run-on with nested parentheticals, which hurts parseability, but almost every clause carries routing or grouping 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?

No output schema exists and no annotations are present, so the description should ideally state what a dry-run returns, the write prerequisites, and the failure modes. It covers the compose target, draft-vs-name, and dry-run default, but the return contract and the write precondition (CapCut closed) are left to the schema, leaving the picture partial for a tool of this complexity.

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 63% (moderate), and the schema already documents most parameters richly. The description adds conceptual grouping (title/subtitle/music/re-chunking groups) and a valuable cross-reference that sub_style and title_style share the same fields and writer as capcut_style_text, but it leaves undocumented top-level params (title, sub_y, title_y, width, height) unexplained.

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?

The opening 'One call for a vertical short: clip + optional title + optional SRT subtitles + optional background music' gives a specific verb-equivalent (compose a vertical short) and enumerates exactly the resources it assembles. It implicitly positions itself above the single-purpose siblings (capcut_add_clip/add_subtitles/add_audio) but never names them, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

It gives real choice guidance between the two target modes ('Give draft ... or name ...') and flags the CapCut 9.x recommendation, plus the dry-run default. However it never says when to reach for this compound tool versus calling the individual sibling tools, which is the primary routing decision an agent faces.

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