save_caption_templateSave a reusable caption template definition with name, style, and optional tags so users can re-apply consistent caption styling to future video projects.
Save a new caption template definition the user can re-apply later.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Display name. | |
| tags | No | Optional tags. | |
| style | Yes | Style payload (font, color, position, animation, etc.). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the persistence intent; it does not say what happens on a duplicate name, whether style is validated, or whether the saved template becomes immediately available to apply tools.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than tight information design.
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 3-parameter create tool with a nested style payload and no output schema, the description covers the basic intent but omits duplicate-handling, validation expectations, and any indication of what is returned. Minimum viable, with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so name, tags, and style are already documented, and the description adds nothing beyond them. The nested style object (font, color, position, animation) is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but earns only the baseline.
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 ("Save a new caption template definition") with a hint of the payoff (re-apply later). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling save_current_caption_template.
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 user can re-apply later" implies a create-then-apply lifecycle but gives no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisite, and no pointer to list_caption_templates, apply_caption_template, or save_current_caption_template. An agent has to infer the choice from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.