capcut_apply_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details on its own. It only says 'apply', without explaining whether the draft is modified, whether an existing effect is replaced, whether saving is required, what the result looks like, or any side effects. This is too thin for a mutation 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 concise sentence and avoids redundancy, which is good. However, it is so terse that it omits important usage and behavioral context. It is compact rather than genuinely helpful.

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?

With 8 parameters, two operational modes, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to explain more than one sentence provides. It does not cover how to identify valid effects, which parameters apply in which mode, or what the tool returns or changes. The definition is incomplete for reliable 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 high at 88%, and the schema already documents most parameters including effect, params, startSec, intensity, segmentId, trackIndex, and durationSec. The description adds little semantic value beyond confirming 'segment' and 'standalone effect layer' modes, so the schema carries the burden.

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 a specific action ('Apply a visual effect') and identifies two target modes: a specific segment or a standalone effect layer track. It is understandable and more specific than a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like apply_filter or apply_animation.

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 apply_effect versus related tools such as apply_filter, apply_transition, or apply_animation. It also does not mention prerequisites like listing valid effects via list_effects, or how to choose between segment mode and standalone layer mode.

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