capcut_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states what it checks but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or whether it modifies the draft. 'Check' implies non-destructive, but the absence of side-effect or outcome details leaves the agent uncertain.

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 front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates the validation checks without redundant words. Every element 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how to interpret validation results. It does not, and it also lacks usage context. The simple single-parameter tool is underspecified for an agent to fully understand the tool's role in a workflow.

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?

The schema provides only a required string parameter 'draft' with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that the draft is 'in-session', which adds some meaning. However, it does not explain the expected format (e.g., JSON string, ID) or how the parameter relates to the in-session state, so compensation is partial.

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 ('Check') and identifies the resource ('draft') plus the exact validation criteria (overlaps, duplicate ids/render_index, missing media). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like capcut_read_timeline or capcut_set_props by focusing on validation rather than reading or editing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., before saving, after edits) and does not mention any alternatives or exclusions. It only implies 'use to validate the draft' but provides no context for decision-making.

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