capcut_add_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, track creation defaults, or the meaning of key behaviors like what happens when trackIndex is omitted. The description is far too vague to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary detail and context, so the sentence does not 'earn its place' as a helpful descriptor.

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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is grossly incomplete. It offers only a minimal statement, leaving the agent with insufficient information to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 only 36%, meaning most parameters are undocumented. The description itself does not explain any of the 14 parameters; it merely repeats the verb 'add'. It adds no semantic value beyond what the parameter names already imply.

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 a specific action ('Add') and resource ('an image') on a track, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_video or add_audio. However, it does not explicitly mention those siblings or elaborate on the 'at a time' nuance.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as capcut_add_video or capcut_add_text. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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