capcut_add_image

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that an image is added. It does not explain whether this mutates an in-memory draft, how default track placement works, whether the image becomes a segment, or what side effects occur at the target time. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating editing operation.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, its brevity is partly a result of omitted context, so while structurally efficient, it does not fully support the complexity of the tool.

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?

This is a 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage. The description does not explain how the image file is provided, how transforms like scale/position/rotation are used, the default behavior for omitted trackIndex, or the save/discard lifecycle. It is not complete enough for confident autonomous invocation with a specific intended result.

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?

The schema has 14 parameters with only 36% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It only loosely maps to 'time' (atSec) and 'track' (trackIndex), while parameters like file, posX, posY, scale, speed, volume, opacity, rotation, srcStartSec, and trackRenderIndex receive no added semantic clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('image') and adds placement context ('at a time on a track'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like add_video, add_audio, or add_text. It is clear enough to identify the core function, though it does not explicitly mention the draft context or how this differs from adding a sticker or other visual element.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of add_video, add_text, add_sticker, or add_track. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing conditions are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and resource type alone.

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