Create CapCut Draft

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it creates a draft and returns a draft_id that must be passed to subsequent calls. It also clarifies the ordering constraint. This is good transparency, though it doesn't discuss potential side effects like auto-save or external storage, which annotations' openWorldHint=true might warrant.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the ordering requirement, parameter defaults, return value, and example. No redundant or filler text.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, what the return value is, and how to configure dimensions. It fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand its role in the 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 adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that default dimensions are 1080x1920 (portrait) and that 1920x1080 is for landscape. This orientation guidance helps agents choose correct values without needing extra reasoning.

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's function: 'Create a new CapCut/Jianying video draft (project)'. It identifies the specific verb (create) and resource (draft), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting 'This must be called first — every other capcut_* tool needs the draft_id it returns.' This makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This must be called first' and 'Use when starting any new video project.' It also provides a concrete example ('make a 9:16 short' -> width=1080, height=1920). It clearly implies that sibling tools are for subsequent additions, making the usage context robust.

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