capcut_add_hook_badge

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses placement ('top center above the avatar'), but says nothing about permissions, whether existing badges are replaced, how start_ms is anchored, duration limits, or what the operation returns — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the core action and placement come first, followed by a compact style enumeration. The bullet-style formatting is slightly informal but wastes no words.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and 5 parameters, the description should explain far more (timing semantics, required draft context, interaction with existing overlays). It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It valuably supplies the otherwise-absent enum values for 'style' (red_badge, yellow_pill, clean_dark), but leaves draft_name, headline_text, start_ms, and duration_ms completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a high-contrast headline banner') plus concrete examples and exact placement ('top center above the avatar'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like capcut_add_captions or capcut_add_proof_overlay. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. that a draft must already exist), and no mention of alternatives such as overlays or captions for similar on-screen text needs. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the 'hook' framing.

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