capcut_clone_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by explaining that 'empty:true clears all clips/tracks for a fresh build', which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not disclose potential overwrite behavior, error conditions, or permission requirements, but the core behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence explains a critical flag. Every part earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should indicate what the tool returns or any side effects. It does not. It also omits details about existing destination folders or error handling. For a simple clone tool this may be sufficient, but there are clear gaps given missing return-value information.

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 provides meaning for the 'empty' parameter ('clears all clips/tracks') but does not elaborate on 'base' or 'newName' beyond their self-explanatory names. This partial compensation is adequate for a simple clone operation but leaves some semantic gaps.

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 tool's action: 'Copy a draft folder to a new name'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like capcut_list_drafts, capcut_read_timeline, and capcut_trim_segment. The mention of 'valid scaffolding' and 'fresh build' adds context for its intended use.

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 gives some usage context ('valid scaffolding', 'fresh build') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage for creating a new draft from an existing one, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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