capcut_lint_safe_zones

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Scan... to verify' implies a non-mutating pass and it usefully discloses a second check (missing media on disk), but it never states whether issues are merely reported or auto-fixed, nor that the call is side-effect-free and safe to repeat.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the primary purpose leads, and the secondary media-file check is appended without padding. The trailing sentence is slightly tangential to the 'safe zones' framing but still earns its place as an additional validation.

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 explained. However, the platform parameter — which materially changes the collision rules applied — is left undocumented in both schema and description, and it is unclear whether the tool reports or resolves issues.

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% for both parameters. The mention of 'TikTok or Instagram Reels UI elements' hints that a platform selection exists, but the description never names the 'platform' parameter, its allowed values, or its 'tiktok' default — leaving the agent to infer that this parameter drives which safe-zone rules apply.

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 ('Scan the draft to verify...') and names the concrete failure modes it detects (UI element collisions, missing media). It is unmistakably a read-only validation tool, cleanly distinguishable from the mutating siblings like capcut_add_captions and capcut_render_preview_proxy.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is a pre-publish/pre-render check, but the description never says when to run it versus alternatives (e.g., capcut_inspect_draft) or that it is a gate before rendering. No explicit when/when-not guidance.

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