capcut_inspect_edit

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

The description implies a non-mutating inspection operation and lists what analysis categories it covers, which is useful with no annotations present. However, it does not disclose whether the tool operates on the current unsaved session or a saved draft, whether validation runs live, or what happens on missing/invalid data. The read-only nature is mostly conveyed by the verb 'inspect' rather than explicitly stated.

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 compact sentence with the main verb front-loaded and a clear list of deliverables. There is no filler or repetition, though the comma-heavy list reads slightly densely and could be structured more cleanly.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and several nearby analytical/validation siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the draft input, return format, whether the operation is read-only, or how it differs from capcut_validate and capcut_read_timeline. An agent could call it, but not with confidence about expected input and output.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'draft' parameter beyond the schema's name and type. The agent must guess whether 'draft' is an ID, a file path, or a session reference, and no format or example is provided. Because there is only one parameter and its name is reasonably suggestive, it is not a complete failure, but the description adds no real semantic value.

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 names a specific action ('Analyze and inspect') and concrete outputs (timeline statistics, B-Roll coverage percentage, cut count, validation health), making it clear this is an analytical/read-only tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like capcut_read_timeline or capcut_validate, and 'validation health' may overlap with capcut_validate, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as capcut_read_timeline, capcut_validate, or capcut_analyze_video_understanding. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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