seedance_create_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return fields (ok, task_id, raw API response) hinting at async behavior but does not explicitly state that the task is asynchronous, requires polling, or has any side effects. Behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits are absent.

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 concise and well-structured with a brief header and clear bullet list of arguments. The return line is informative. Only minor improvement possible by grouping optional parameters or adding a usage note.

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 9 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameters but misses broader context: no mention of whether the tool is async, how to handle the returned task_id, or when to use this vs sibling tools. The output schema is not referenced but the description covers return fields.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, examples (e.g., '16:9' for ratio), and defaults (e.g., model from env var). It adds significant value beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 purpose: 'Create a Seedance 2.0 video generation task.' with a specific verb and resource. The sibling tool 'seedance_create_and_wait' implies this tool creates without waiting, distinguishing it effectively.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'seedance_create_and_wait' or others. It lacks context for decision-making, such as when to poll vs wait.

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