capcut_raw_patch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the risk signal; 'undocumented ops' and 'use with care' warn that behavior is unstable and potentially harmful. However, it does not specify what side effects may occur, whether changes are persisted or need capcut_save, or whether the patch is validated.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the risk and action; every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a raw mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently. Critical missing context includes return value, error behavior, validation/isolation, and the save model; 'undocumented ops' explains why details are absent but does not supply them.

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 0% and there are no descriptions on draft/patch, so the description is the only source of semantics. It tells the agent the patch is a JSON patch and that it is deep-merged into draft_content, but it never explains the expected structure of the draft string, how patch paths are addressed, or what a valid patch looks like.

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 action ('deep-merge'), a target ('draft_content'), and the patch input; 'Advanced escape hatch' immediately flags it as the raw, undocumented sibling distinct from the high-level capcut_* tools. This is far more informative than a tautological name.

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?

'Advanced escape hatch' and 'undocumented ops' clearly imply this is the last-resort tool when no high-level sibling operation covers the needed change. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is evident.

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