capcut_add_progress_bar

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

The description discloses the animated fill behavior and the full-duration span, which is useful. However, there are no annotations and the description does not mention side effects on the timeline, whether it creates a new track or modifies an existing one, or what the operation returns.

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 well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and animation behavior. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 required 'draft' parameter is not explained, and there is no mention of return values, side effects, or follow-up actions like saving. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation.

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 75% (color, position, trackIndex are documented), so the schema carries most of the parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail and does not clarify the required 'draft' parameter, which remains undocumented.

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 clearly states the action: adding an animated progress bar that fills from 0% to 100% across the video duration. It identifies a specific resource and behavior, and it is distinct from the sibling add_* tools like add_text or add_lower_third.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like needing a track or draft. The sibling list contains many add_* tools, but the description does not help an agent choose among them.

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