Delete a segment from a CapCut draft. Optionally ripple the timeline so later segments shift earlier to close the gap, either on one track or all tracks.
Remove a segment. With ripple:true, every later segment (on this track, or every track if rippleAllTracks:true) shifts earlier to close the gap instead of leaving dead space.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft | Yes | ||
| ripple | No | ||
| segmentId | Yes | ||
| rippleAllTracks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the critical ripple effect: later segments shift earlier to close gaps, and rippleAllTracks extends this to every track. It could add that deletion is permanent or reversible, but the current explanation of the destructive and gap-filling behavior is strong.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the conditional ripple behavior is explained efficiently without redundancy.
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?
The description is fairly complete for a straightforward deletion tool: it covers the core operation, the two behavior-modifying booleans, and the gap-closing consequence. It lacks a definition of 'draft' and does not mention output or error behavior, but the essential call semantics are present.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains ripple and rippleAllTracks meaningfully and segmentId is self-evident, but it does not clarify the required 'draft' parameter beyond its name. The description adds real value for two of the four parameters, but leaves the primary context parameter undocumented.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Remove a segment,' which clearly identifies the operation as deleting a segment from a CapCut draft. It goes beyond a bare restatement by explaining the ripple behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like trim_segment or split_segment.
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 usage is implied: an agent should call this when a segment needs to be removed, and no alternative deletion tool exists among the siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any comparison with alternatives like move_segment or trim_segment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.