capcut_clone_and_revoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what is preserved (visual cuts, B-roll timing, cutout settings) and what is swapped (voiceover audio, captions), but it omits side effects such as whether the source draft is modified, whether the new draft overwrites anything, and any permission or audio-format prerequisites.

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 front-loaded sentence that begins with the core action and then enumerates what is preserved and swapped. Every clause earns its place by clarifying the operation's scope, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves important context unstated, including prerequisites, side effects, and the format expectations for the new audio and captions inputs.

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 for all four parameters. It maps semantically to the parameters (source draft, new draft, voiceover audio, captions), but it does not explain expected formats, required versus optional status, or the structure of the optional captions JSON, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 states a specific compound action (clone and revoice) on a specific resource (a finished English draft into a Spanish/localized version), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like capcut_add_captions or capcut_add_audio_clip by preserving existing edits while swapping audio and captions. An agent can identify the tool's core operation without opening the schema.

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 usage scenario: localizing a finished English draft by cloning it and replacing voiceover/captions. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives such as manually creating a draft, adding audio clips, or adding captions separately. The condition is inferable but not stated.

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