capcut_trim_segment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (change start/duration/in-point) and the ripple effect (shifting later segments). However, it does not mention whether the edit is reversible, if it requires saving (capcut_save), or any error cases. The ripple explanation is valuable but other operational behavior is missing.

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, tightly packed sentence: the core action first, then the ripple qualifier. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the ripple explanation is concise. Perfectly structured for quick scanning.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and ripple effect but omits operational details such as whether changes are persisted immediately, the need to call capcut_save, or error handling for invalid segment IDs. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete for a complex edit 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps atSec/durSec/srcStartSec to start/duration/source in-point and explains ripple and rippleAllTracks. However, it does not clarify that these parameters are optional (only draft and segmentId are required) or how they interact when multiple are provided. The ripple semantics are explained but optionality and interplay are left implicit.

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 'Change' and the resource: segment start, duration, and source in-point. It specifies seconds and distinguishes itself from siblings like move_segment (which repositions) and split_segment (which divides) by focusing on trim-like edits. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage for trimming operations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like move_segment or split_segment. It provides context about ripple behavior but no exclusions or mention of sibling tools. Usage is clear from the action but not fully guided.

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