capcut_add_sticker

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that there is no bundled sticker catalog and that the resource_id must be sourced from a draft, which is important. However, it does not mention potential side effects like track creation (which is implied by 'placed on a new or existing sticker track') or what happens to the sticker if the draft is invalid. Since annotations are absent, this is a moderate gap.

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 concise, about two sentences, and front-loads the most critical behavioral detail (resource_id acquisition) early. It avoids fluff but could be slightly more structured to explain parameter defaults. Overall efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (14 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential context for the required parameter (resourceId) but leaves many optional parameters and potential behaviors unexplained. For an agent to use it correctly, it would need to infer parameter behaviors from the schema or examples. This feels incomplete for a tool that creates timeline items.

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 36%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds value by explaining the resourceId's source and the atSec default behavior. However, many parameters (posX, posY, scale, etc.) are not explained in the description, forcing the agent to rely on their names or the schema. The description does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool's action (add a sticker), the resource used (resource_id), and the target (new or existing sticker track). It even explains how to obtain the resource ID, which is a crucial domain-specific detail. This clearly distinguishes it from other add tools like capcut_add_text or capcut_add_image.

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 explains when to use this tool (when you have a resource_id from an existing draft) and implicitly that it is the only way to add a sticker since there is no bundled catalog. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the rationale is clear and provides context for when this tool is appropriate.

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