capcut_split_segment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (splitting into two) but omits important details such as whether the draft is mutated immediately, any validation on atSec (e.g., must lie within segment duration), and what identifiers the resulting segments will have.

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 concise sentence that clearly front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this brief description is inadequate for a mutating operation. It does not explain the workflow context (e.g., whether the draft must be saved via capcut_save after splitting), the constraint that atSec must fall within the segment's timeline range, or the resulting segment structure. An agent would struggle to use it correctly without additional 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%, and the description only hints at atSec via 'timeline time'. No guidance is provided for the draft or segmentId parameters, nor does it specify the unit or valid range for atSec. The parameter names alone are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('split') with a clear resource ('a segment') and a temporal parameter ('at a timeline time'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trim_segment (which alters boundaries) and delete_segment.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use split versus trim_segment or other editing operations. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be preferred over alternatives.

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