capcut_register_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the target file, that it is backed up first, the hard prerequisite that CapCut be closed, and that it is dry-run by default. It omits error/failure behavior and what happens to existing project-list entries on refresh.

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 target, then timing, prerequisite, and safety default. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation target, backup, prerequisite, and dry-run output ('return the plan only'). It is largely complete, though it could say more about what a successful write returns or changes.

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 both parameters (draft, dry_run) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description restates dry-run behavior and mentions 'current duration' (not a parameter) but adds no syntax or format detail 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 pair (add/refresh) and resource (CapCut's project list / root_meta_info.json) with its current duration, making it distinguishable from siblings like capcut_create_draft or capcut_read_draft. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear operational context: 'Run after the last edit' and 'CapCut must be closed', plus the dry-run-first posture. It does not explicitly contrast with create_draft or list_drafts, so it is strong context but not full when/when-not routing.

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