capcut_trim_segment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says values can be changed; it does not disclose what happens to the rendered timeline, whether the draft is mutated immediately, whether changes need save, or whether setting srcStartSec shifts media content. This is a thin behavioral contract.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or irrelevant context. The key operation and attributes lead immediately.

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 mutating 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is thin: no usage guidelines, no prerequisites, no side-effect or save/discard context, and no return-value mention. It is enough to identify the tool but not to call it with confidence in complex timeline scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description is the only place parameter meaning is explained. It connects durSec to duration, atSec to start, and srcStartSec to source in-point, and specifies seconds. It does not explicitly map draft/segmentId or clarify mutual constraints between atSec, durSec, and srcStartSec, but it provides substantive semantic help.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('segment') with three distinct editable attributes ('start', 'duration', 'source in-point'), plus units. This separates it from siblings like capcut_move_segment or capcut_split_segment, which target different operations.

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?

No sentence describes when to use this tool instead of capcut_move_segment, capcut_split_segment, or capcut_delete_segment. The only signal is the tool name and the general description, so an agent gets no explicit routing or exclusions.

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