Save CapCut Draft

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: saving generates a 'dfd_' folder next to capcut_server.py and requires manual copying to the drafts directory. It also explains the return value shape, which is helpful since no output schema is present.

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 moderately sized but well-structured with labeled sections (Args, Returns, Note). Each sentence contributes useful information: purpose, usage timing, parameter source, return details, and side-effect notes. It is slightly verbose, but the structure makes it easy to scan, so it earns a 4.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the return value (result.draft_url and/or local folder path), the side effect (folder generation), how to use the output (copy to drafts directory), and idempotency. This covers the essential context an agent needs, though error handling is not discussed.

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 provides a description for draft_id ('The draft_id returned by capcut_create_draft') with 100% coverage. The description merely repeats this in the Args section ('From capcut_create_draft') without adding new meaning. Thus, the schema already carries the semantic weight, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Save/finalize a draft so it can be opened in CapCut/Jianying,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that create or add content. The phrase 'Call this last, after adding all desired tracks/effects' further clarifies its role as the final step.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this last, after adding all desired tracks/effects,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes that it is safe to call multiple times, which is useful. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but given the sibling context, the ordering is clear.

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