capcut_reorder_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the layer-order model (position 0 = bottom) and the constraint that the main video track is pinned at 0, which is real behavioral context. However it omits what happens to the other tracks when one moves, error behavior for invalid positions or names, and any permission/locking requirement beyond what the schema already states about dry_run.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two facts an agent most needs (ordering semantics, dry-run default). No filler or restated name/title.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the ordering model and dry-run default but not the shape of the dry-run plan, the write-side side effects, or failure modes. It is adequate but leaves the agent to discover return and error behavior by calling the tool.

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 only 40%, with 'name' and 'position' undescribed in the schema. The description partially compensates by defining the meaning of position ('0 = bottom') and the grouping applied to 'type', but it never explains what 'name' refers to or how it identifies the track, leaving a key required parameter undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Move a track up or down') plus the scoping rule ('among the tracks of its type'), so an agent immediately knows this reorders existing tracks rather than creating them. No sibling in the list does track reordering, so the action is effectively unambiguous, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with neighbors like capcut_set_timeline.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance; the description only describes the operation and the dry-run default. It never says which sibling to prefer when restructuring a timeline, nor what precondition (existing track names) must hold before calling it.

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