capcut_trim_segment

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 states a mutation ('change') but does not disclose side effects on the timeline, whether changes are reversible, any constraints on combined parameters, or required permissions. The lack of detail on what happens when multiple timing fields are set together is a notable gap for an editing operation.

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 that is front-loaded and free of filler. It conveys the core action and scope in just a few words, earning top marks for conciseness and structure.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the full parameter set, side effects, or usage context relative to sibling tools. The description is too thin to support correct selection and invocation for an agent in all but the most obvious cases.

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 explain all parameters. It maps 'start', 'duration', and 'source in-point' to atSec, durSec, and srcStartSec respectively, but it does not describe the required parameters 'draft' and 'segmentId' at all. It also lacks detail on units or interactions between parameters, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for invoking the tool correctly.

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 action: 'Change a segment start / duration / source in-point (seconds).' It identifies the specific resource (segment) and the exact attributes being modified, distinguishing it from siblings like move_segment, split_segment, and delete_segment. The verb 'change' and the focused timing attributes leave no ambiguity about the tool's 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 implies the use case: adjusting a segment's timing properties. It gives clear context for when to use this tool (when you need to modify start time, duration, or source in-point) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Since no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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