capcut_remove_segment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that only orphaned materials are removed, that ripple moves later segments on the same track while other tracks stay put, and that it is dry-run by default. It omits irreversibility/undo and permission requirements, but the behavioral profile is unusually explicit.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by ripple behavior and the dry-run caveat. No filler, though the phrasing is dense enough that it borders on run-on.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action, cascade scope, ripple effect, and dry-run safety. Return-value detail is delegated to the dry_run schema field, which is reasonable; nothing critical to 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 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to ripple (default false, same-track-only pull-left) and clarifies start_s as the segment identifier, but leaves type, draft, and track essentially to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial compensation.

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 (delete), a precisely identified resource (the segment starting at start_s on a named track), and the cascading target (materials only it used). This is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the many add_/set_ siblings.

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?

There is no removal alternative among the siblings, so the tool's role is implicit rather than contrasted. The description explains ripple semantics and dry-run default, which help the agent choose behavior, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g. draft must exist, CapCut closed for writes).

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