capcut_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses side effects (.mcpbak backup), a validation step, and a refusal condition with an escape hatch (force:true). It does not describe failure behavior or overwrite semantics, but the disclosed traits are meaningful and non-obvious.

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 sentences with no waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the secondary details (backup, validation, refusal) are packed into a parenthetical and a short second sentence, each earning 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavior well. The missing piece is the meaning of 'draft' and what happens when validation fails, which would be useful without an output schema to fill those gaps.

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 explains 'force' by tying it to the refusal condition, but 'draft' remains ambiguous—it could be content or an identifier. Partial compensation yields a middle score.

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 has a specific verb+resource ('Write session edits to disk') and clearly differentiates from sibling editing tools by focusing on persistence. The parenthetical details (backup, validation) and the CapCut-open guard further distinguish its purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use it (after editing, to persist) and includes a conditional guard (refuses if CapCut is open unless force:true). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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