seedance_create_and_wait

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the polling behavior (interval_seconds, timeout_seconds) and return structure. It explains that it waits for completion, which is key behavioral info. However, it doesn’t mention side effects like resource consumption or rate limits.

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 lengthy due to parameter listing, but front-loads the purpose. The Args section is clear and structured. It could be slightly more concise, but it is still efficient.

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, all parameters, and return values. Given the high parameter count and existence of output schema, it is fairly complete. However, it lacks prerequisites, error handling details, or differentiation from siblings.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description carries the full burden. It provides concise explanations for all 11 parameters, e.g., 'prompt: Text description of the video to generate. Required.' This adds significant value beyond the parameter names.

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 it creates a Seedance video task and waits for completion in one call. This distinguishes it from siblings like seedance_create_video (create only) and seedance_wait_task (wait only).

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 implies usage as a synchronous alternative to separate create and wait steps, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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