capcut_add_sticker

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only states what is placed and not what happens to the draft, whether the operation is reversible, or how it interacts with save/discard. 'Place' implies a mutation but does not describe its scope or consequences.

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 definition is a single, tight sentence with no filler and front-loads the operation and the main placement attributes. It earns its place without redundant restatement.

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 schema plus one-sentence description is minimally adequate for basic invocation, but it leaves gaps around where valid sticker resources come from, what draft state is required, and what the tool returns. Given no annotations and no output schema, these are clear but not fatal omissions.

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 90%, so the schema already documents most parameters; the description's 'time, position, scale, and duration' loosely maps to atSec, posX/posY, scale, and durSec but adds no new format or syntax detail. This is the baseline for a schema-rich definition.

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 concrete verb ('Place') and names the resource ('sticker/overlay') and the meaningful placement axes ('time, position, scale, and duration'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling content-add tools like capcut_add_text or capcut_add_audio.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives or for prerequisites such as obtaining a sticker via capcut_list_stickers or ensuring the target draft is loaded. The absence of exclusions or sibling routing leaves the agent to infer usage.

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