capcut_improve_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the processing pipeline, runtime estimates (~1s vs 5-15s), and the return shape. However it says nothing about permissions, whether the input is modified in place, where output lands when output_audio_path is null, or failure behavior.

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 bulleted mode/target_lufs breakdown is front-loaded and each line earns its place. The closing 'Returns JSON string…' sentence is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short and harmless.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description covers the tuning knobs but omits the two path parameters and output-file behavior. An agent could call it, but not confidently.

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 and it only half does: mode values and target_lufs semantics (-14.0 LUFS standard) are explained, but input_audio_path and especially output_audio_path (default null) are left undefined, so an agent cannot tell where results are written.

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 verb and resource: 'vocal enhancement and loudness mastering for UGC videos,' with concrete DSP details. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like capcut_clone_and_revoice or capcut_add_bg_music_with_ducking, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Mode selection is only implied through the tradeoff prose (fast ~1 sec vs neural ~5-15 sec, neural strips room noise/echo), so an agent can infer when to pick each. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative tool.

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