capcut_discard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does convey the destructive nature by saying unsaved session edits are dropped and the draft is reloaded from disk. It could be more explicit about potential data loss, but the core side effect is evident.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The key behavior is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the operation.

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 simple one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the action and its effect. It does not cover edge cases like what happens if there are no unsaved edits or what the return value is, but those are minor gaps.

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 has one required parameter, 'draft', but zero description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining the parameter's format or meaning. The phrase 'reload the draft' only weakly hints that 'draft' identifies which draft to operate on, leaving the agent without clear parameter-level guidance.

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, 'Drop unsaved session edits and reload the draft from disk', with a clear resource (draft/session edits). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capcut_save or capcut_read_timeline by specifying that unsaved changes are discarded.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to abandon unsaved in-memory edits and restore the last saved draft state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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