Add Subtitles to Draft

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

With annotations already indicating the tool is not read-only or destructive, the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to existing subtitles.

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 includes a detailed Args list and example, making it somewhat long. While structured, it could be more concise by omitting redundant parameter details already in schema.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., updated draft, confirmation). It only mentions response_format as a parameter, not the actual output. This leaves the agent uncertain about the result.

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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value with an example SRT format and listing default values in the Args section, which helps understanding beyond schema 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 clearly states the tool adds subtitles from SRT content with styling options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capcut_add_text, which likely handles manual text entry.

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 use when you have SRT content but does not explicitly state when to use this versus other text/subtitle tools. No alternatives or exclusion criteria provided.

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