capcut_raw_patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral risks. It warns 'Use with care' and notes the operations are 'undocumented,' which signals instability, but it does not explain potential side effects, destructiveness, or how deep-merging affects existing draft_content.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the key concept 'Advanced escape hatch' and immediately stating the action and risk. Every word earns its place with 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, undocumented mutation tool with no output schema and sparse parameter explanations, the description is too thin. It lacks return/error behavior, what 'draft' refers to, and sufficient context for an agent to safely construct a correct call.

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 clarifies that 'patch' is a JSON patch used for deep-merging, but leaves 'draft' ambiguous (whether it is an ID, path, or serialized content) and provides no details on patch structure beyond the sparse schema.

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 an action ('deep-merge') and a target ('draft_content'), and it differentiates the tool from its siblings by labeling it an 'Advanced escape hatch' with 'undocumented ops.' This is specific and distinguishes it from the higher-level, documented sibling tools.

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 phrase 'Advanced escape hatch' implies use for undocumented operations not covered by the normal sibling tools, and 'Use with care' cautions against casual use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any alternative tools.

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