Add a new track—video, audio, text, or sticker—to a CapCut desktop draft project. Specify the draft and track type; the tool inserts the track for editing and saving.
Add a new track (video | audio | text | sticker).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| draft | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to fall back on, and the description only states 'Add a new track' without disclosing behavioral details such as whether existing content is affected, what constitutes a valid track, or what the result of the operation looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the track types. However, it is too terse to fully inform the agent; brevity is achieved at the cost of essential details.
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 existence of sibling add_* tools, the description does not clarify the relationship or when to prefer this generic tool. With 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to provide complete context for correct invocation.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only lists the type enum which already appears in the schema. It provides no explanation of the 'name' or 'draft' parameters, leaving their meaning and format unclear.
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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'track', with an explicit list of allowed types (video, audio, text, sticker). However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like capcut_add_video, capcut_add_audio, etc., which likely create specific track types.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the more specific add_* sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.