capcut_apply_audio_effect

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states that an effect is applied. It does not disclose whether the effect replaces existing effects, whether effects are reversible, what happens on invalid effect names, or what state the draft is left in. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation, target domain, and examples efficiently, earning its place without repetition.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain expected return behavior, draft handling, or how to discover valid effect names. Given the complexity of the operation and the many sibling tools, this is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 already documents segmentId and audioEffect, and the description adds useful extra examples such as "Telephone" and "Chipmunk". However, the draft parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent must infer its role. The description partially compensates for the 67% schema coverage but does not fully resolve the gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: applying a voice filter or audio scene effect to a clip. The examples clarify the intended domain, and the tool name distinguishes it from visual effect tools like capcut_apply_effect. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling audio tools.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as capcut_apply_effect, capcut_set_audio_fade, or capcut_normalize_audio. It does not state prerequisites, nor does it mention consulting capcut_list_effects for valid effect names. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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