capcut_add_audio

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention that adding audio mutates the draft, that omitting trackIndex creates a new track, that atSec can append after the last clip, or what side effects or return values to expect.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no repetition, which is concise in form. However, for a 14-parameter tool it is too terse to be considered well-sized, and the phrase 'at a time' is vague. It avoids bloat but sacrifices useful content.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, low parameter coverage, and a one-sentence description, the tool is far from complete enough for correct invocation. The agent has no information about required draft context, track behavior, timing semantics beyond what the schema partially covers, or the result of the operation.

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 only 36%, leaving 9 of 14 parameters undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all and does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, so an agent cannot infer the semantics of file, draft, posX, posY, scale, speed, volume, opacity, rotation, or other fields.

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 description identifies a specific action and resource: 'Add an audio clip' to a track, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like capcut_add_video, capcut_add_image, or capcut_add_text. The phrase 'at a time' is somewhat ambiguous about timeline placement, but the core purpose is still clear.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as a draft ID, track selection, or audio file requirements. Sibling tools are not referenced and no exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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