capcut_create_beat_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: cut lengths follow detected tempo, footage is sampled evenly (so short edits survey the whole video), and safety rules align with capcut_create_project. While it doesn't cover all failure modes or return values, these disclosed traits add meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 two succinct sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a specific behavioral detail (even sampling) and a safety reference. No filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 the rich schema (8 parameters, 88% described) and the creation-oriented nature, the description covers the essential algorithm (beat-synced cuts, tempo-based lengths, even sampling) and safety alignment. It omits return values or failure behavior, but for a project-creation tool these are not critical, especially when sibling tools may document them.

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 coverage is 88%, so parameters like everyNthBeat, skipSeconds, and maxDurationSeconds are already well documented. The description adds context about even sampling and tempo detection, which indirectly informs how `clips` and `source` are used, but it does not provide additional per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool 'Build a new project whose cuts land on the beat' with specific details about tempo-derived cut lengths and even sampling across the source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capcut_create_project (non-beat-synced) and capcut_detect_beats (only detection).

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 implies when to use this tool (when a beat-synced edit is wanted) and references 'Same safety rules as capcut_create_project' for behavioral consistency. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-beat edits, missing the 'when-not' and 'alternatives' criteria for a 5.

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