capcut_add_punch_zooms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the alternating-zoom mechanic, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether existing zooms/keyframes are overwritten, permission or auth needs, or reversibility for what is clearly a mutation. Coverage is partial rather than misleading.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that earns its place by defining the mechanic and mapping two parameters. No filler, though the density of the parenthetical slightly burdens readability.

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. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is only partially complete: it omits the fate of pre-existing zooms and leaves 2 of 4 parameters undocumented.

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 effectively explains zoom_scale and interval_s via the parenthetical, which aligns with their defaults (1.15 and 4), but leaves draft_name and segment_id completely undefined. Partial compensation for a 4-param tool.

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 (add) and resource (punch zooms), and even defines the effect — alternating between 1.0x and zoom_scale every interval_s — so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It is distinguishable from siblings like capcut_add_proof_overlay or capcut_add_hook_badge by the effect type, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Provides context (talking-head clips in short-form ads) and a rationale (retention), which implies when it is appropriate. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many sibling add_* tools, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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