resolve_create_captions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so well: it states that clips and audio are not changed, that a subtitle track is added, that the native true/false result is unreliable, and exactly what counts as success. This gives an agent crucial expectations beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds behavioral caveats and a workflow hint, then packs parameter notes into one line. Every sentence contributes useful information with minimal waste, though the parameter line is slightly dense.

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 purpose, side effects, success criteria, a next-step recommendation, and several parameter meanings—substantial for an agent. But with no annotations and no output schema, the unexplained parameters and lack of a return/error contract leave notable gaps for reliable 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does add meaning for language, preset, and chars_per_line (listing concrete preset values and explaining '0 = preset default'). But dry_run, gap_frames, and line_break are not explained at all, leaving half the parameters under-specified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: auto-caption the CURRENT timeline with Resolve's speech recognitionropolitan, adding a subtitle track. It also clarifies the scope ('CURRENT timeline') and gives the resulting effect, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides context (current timeline, Studio requirement) and a follow-up step (use resolve_get_transcript), so an agent can infer when this tool fits. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with sibling tools like resolve_transcribe_audio or states when not to use it, leaving selection guidance partly implicit.

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