dream_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool opens the clip detail view and is asynchronous ('Wait for the result with dream_wait'), but says nothing about credit cost, reversibility of edits, or permission requirements for a mutation 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint and the follow-up instruction at the end. The action list in parentheses is partly redundant with the enum but is short enough not to bloat the definition.

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 4-parameter async action tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the six variants, and the result-retrieval path via dream_wait. Only cost/reversibility details are absent, which is a minor gap given the otherwise complete coverage.

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% and the enum descriptions are already detailed, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only marginal meaning ('from a change description'), and its parenthetical action list largely duplicates the enum labels.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit an ALREADY FINISHED video in Dreamina') with model scope (video-to-video Seedance 2.5), and the emphasis on 'ALREADY FINISHED' implicitly separates it from the generation sibling dream_generate. The description also enumerates the underlying Dreamina actions so the agent knows the operation's breadth.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to dream_wait for the result, which is the critical follow-up step for an async tool. It does not state when to prefer an alternative (e.g., dream_generate for a new clip rather than editing an existing one), so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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