capcut_set_canvas_blur

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It accurately describes the effect (blur or solid color behind a clip) and adds useful detail like Gaussian and reframing. Still, it does not disclose that the operation mutates the draft, whether it overrides existing background settings, or whether it is reversible, which are meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 that conveys the action, the two modes, the target (behind a clip), and the use case. There is no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description plus schema cover the parameters and core behavior reasonably well. However, it omits explicit guidance on when to use this versus capcut_set_canvas, any prerequisites, and side-effect disclosure, so the overall context is adequate but not fully complete.

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 (80%), with type, color, segmentId, and blurRadius documented; only draft lacks a schema description. The description adds the concepts of Gaussian blur and solid color that map to the type enum, but it does not clarify the draft parameter or the type/color dependency beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Apply), a concrete resource (Gaussian canvas background blur or solid color), and a placement condition (behind a clip) with a clear purpose (vertical/horizontal reframing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capcut_set_canvas and makes the function immediately clear without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'for vertical/horizontal reframing' provides a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance is contextual rather than fully explicit.

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