seedance_generate_video_from_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the mutual exclusivity constraint between reference images and frame URLs, and notes that at least one image must be provided. It also states the return value (task ID and video info). Though it doesn't detail async behavior or polling requirements, this is reasonable coverage for a generation tool.

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-organized with a lead sentence, usage bullets, a constraint note, and a returns section. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every section adds value, and the most critical constraint is called out explicitly near the end of the main 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?

Given 21 parameters and no annotations, the description does a good job capturing the essential behavioral context: image input modes, mutual exclusivity, and required input. The return-value section is present, and the schema covers parameter details. Minor omissions like asynchronous/polling behavior are not fatal because the output schema provides return structure.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter. The description adds meaning by grouping input modes (first frame, last frame, reference images) and highlighting the interaction constraint among them. It doesn't restate each parameter but adds selection-level semantics that the flat schema lacks.

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 that this tool generates AI video from reference images using ByteDance Seedance, distinguishing it from the sibling seedance_generate_video (which presumably lacks image control). It explicitly names the input modes (first frame, last frame, reference images) and supports this with concrete usage cases.

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 explicit when-to-use bullet points and a critical exclusion rule: reference_image_urls cannot be combined with first_frame_url/last_frame_url. It also mandates at least one image input. This is strong guidance for tool selection and correct invocation.

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