capcut_style_text

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 dry-run is the default, a significant behavior for a mutation tool. But it omits that CapCut must be closed for a real write (only in the schema), whether changes are reversible, and the wordart/stroke mutual exclusion.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the feature inventory, then scope and dry-run behavior. For a 29-parameter tool this is efficiently sized with little waste.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more. It covers the main capability and the dry-run/scope behavior, but omits the CapCut-must-be-closed requirement and the wordart/stroke incompatibility, leaving an agent to discover these from the schema alone.

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?

At 59% schema coverage with 29 params, the description adds value by naming the styling features (WordArt, stroke, shadow, background box, per-word highlight, font file, wrap width, alignment). It leaves several params (glow, bubble, line/letter spacing, bg offsets) unmentioned and does not restate the wordart-vs-stroke conflict documented in 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+resource ('Style text already on a track') and correctly scopes to captions/titles, implicitly distinguishing it from capcut_add_text which creates text. It enumerates the styling axes covered. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it competes with, so it stops short of the top tier.

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 clarifies scope ('All segments on the track, or only the one at start_s') and that it dry-runs by default, which implies the safe-preview workflow. However there is no guidance on when to prefer this over capcut_copy_text_template or capcut_add_text, and no prerequisites stated.

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