capcut_apply_pip_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Apply...', implying in-place mutation, but does not disclose whether the draft is modified immediately, whether persistence requires capcut_save, whether existing layout settings are overwritten, or how scale interacts with corner presets beyond the schema default.

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 or redundant detail. It communicates the essential action and scope efficiently.

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?

This is a mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only states the action. It omits persistence semantics, side effects, the optional scale caveat, and any comparative guidance against sibling layout-related operations, leaving the agent under-informed 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for layout, scale, and segmentId (75% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. However, the description adds no new parameter meaning, and the required 'draft' parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a small gap that the description does not fill.

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 specific resource type ('layout preset'), and a target ('clip'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling apply_* tools by naming the preset kind as Picture-in-Picture or Split-Screen, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 the many sibling apply_* tools (effect, transition, animation, filter, mask, etc.), nor does it mention prerequisites, ordering, or alternatives. Usage context must be entirely inferred from the tool name.

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