capcut_auto_insert_broll

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose mutation behavior. 'Place' implies modifying the timeline, but it does not explain side effects like whether the overlay track is created, whether existing B-Roll is replaced, permissions needed, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 that front-loads the main function with no filler. Every element ('B-Roll cutaways', 'overlay track', 'designated timestamps') contributes meaning, making it appropriately sized.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required draft parameter, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot infer prerequisites, side effects, or how to specify the draft target, making it incomplete for safe 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 67% (draft lacks a description). The description adds context for insertions (B-Roll cutaways, timestamps) and trackIndex (overlay track), but the draft parameter remains unexplained. It partially compensates for the schema gap but does not fully clarify all three parameters.

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 specific verb ('place') and resource ('B-Roll cutaways on an overlay track at designated timestamps'), making the core function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like capcut_add_video or capcut_add_image by emphasizing the automated overlay placement, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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 clear context that this tool is for placing multiple B-Roll cutaways at specified timestamps, which implies batch/automated use. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., capcut_add_video for single clips), leaving some inference to the agent.

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