capcut_create_project

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals non-obvious traits: only creates, never modifies, refuses duplicates, and requires CapCut to be closed. These are critical safety details the schema cannot express.

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 three sentences with a clear opening statement and two sentences of critical constraints. Every sentence adds value—no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's effect (create), constraints (duplicate refusal, CapCut closed), and parameter behavior (trimming, canvas scaling). Even without an output schema, it provides enough context for correct selection and invocation.

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 already describes all 4 parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics: clips are 'laid end to end on one track', 'each optionally trimmed', and canvas scaling states 'Clips are scaled to cover the frame rather than letterboxed.' This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Build a new CapCut project from video files', a specific verb+resource+layout. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_beat_edit, list_projects, and read_project by focusing on creation from raw clips and explicitly stating it never modifies existing projects.

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?

States the primary use case and gives a clear exclusion: 'never modifies an existing one, and refuses if a project of that name is already there.' It also provides the prerequisite 'CapCut must be closed' and a suggested follow-up step. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, the context is sufficient for proper usage.

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