Apply one caption style across the project

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it applies changes globally to 'every caption at once,' requires CapCut to be closed, and supports a dryRun preview. It also notes upstream limitations (font family and position are not supported). This goes beyond the schema and provides useful safety and scope information, though it does not detail exact file modifications or reversal options.

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 succinct and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and scope, followed by presets, animation guidance, and exclusions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and constraints.

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 the tool's purpose, presets, animation source, unsupported features, and operational requirements (CapCut closed, dryRun). Despite the absence of an output schema and annotations, it provides enough context for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool, and what to expect in terms of scope and limitations.

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 covers 67% of parameters, but the description enriches meaning by explaining the overall effect (styles are applied project-wide), naming valid presets, and pointing to a command for animation slugs. It also clarifies why certain parameters (font, position) are absent, aiding interpretation. The description effectively compensates for the schema's gaps, although individual schema property descriptions already handle some details.

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 core action: applying a unified style and optional animation to every caption. It enumerates the style attributes (outline, shadow, background plate, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle overlays or subtitles by framing it as the batch operation editors would otherwise do by hand.

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 practical context: it is a batch operation to replace manual per-caption editing, and it explicitly lists unsupported aspects (font family, on-screen position) to steer users toward manual work or other tools. It also provides operational guidance (CapCut must be closed, use dryRun to preview), though it does not directly name alternative tools for the unsupported cases.

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