Add Image Asset to CapCut Draft

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

The description confirms the act of adding and mentions a JSON return, but does not disclose whether the operation persists immediately or requires a separate save (e.g., capcut_save_draft). Annotations already cover read-only/destructive/idempotent aspects, and the description adds only minimal extra context about side effects.

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 opening purpose sentence is strong and front-loaded, but the 'Args' section duplicates the full parameter list from the schema at length, making the description verbose and repetitive. It could have omitted the redundant list and kept only the essential examples.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the return value and parameter examples. However, it lacks workflow context such as the prerequisite of having an unsaved draft and the need to call capcut_save_draft afterward, which is important for a multi-step editing workflow.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides terse grouping and examples (e.g., 'zoom_in', 'fade_in') but largely restates the schema's parameter descriptions without adding substantial new meaning.

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 'Add a static image (photo, graphic, generated art) to an existing draft's timeline,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling add_* tools by explicitly targeting static images, not video, text, or audio.

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 usage for static images in an existing draft, but does not explicitly say when to choose this over capcut_add_video or capcut_add_text, nor does it mention the need to save the draft later. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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