capcut_apply_filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Apply' but does not state whether this replaces or stacks existing filters, whether a standalone track is created as a new layer, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur on the target segment/track. This is a significant gap 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the verb ('Apply'), the resource ('color filter (grade/look)'), and the key target alternatives. Every element earns its place.

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 combination of description and schema is minimally viable for an agent to make a basic call: provide draft and filter, optionally segmentId or track parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits side effects, return behavior, and the connection to capcut_list_filters for discovering valid filter names. Clear gaps remain.

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 (86%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the 'specific segment or standalone adjustment filter track' distinction, which loosely reinforces the segmentId semantics, but it does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented 'draft' parameter or add details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Apply a color filter') and clearly identifies the resource type ('color filter (grade/look)'), distinguishing it from effect/transition tools. It also specifies the two invocation modes ('specific segment' or 'standalone adjustment filter track'), giving the agent a precise mental model of what this tool does.

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 siblings such as capcut_list_filters, capcut_apply_effect, or capcut_set_color_adjustments. It explains the two placement modes but does not mention prerequisites like first listing available filters or when a standalone track is preferable to segment application.

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