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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely valuable behavioral fact: running clips are not interrupted, so the effect is limited to the pending queue. However, it omits whether the removal is reversible, what happens to the queue record, whether any auth/permission is needed, and what the call returns.

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 short sentences, effect first and the non-interruption guarantee second. Nothing is wasted and the operative constraint is front-loaded.

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 parameterless, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly sufficient: the scope and the key safety boundary are stated. It could still say what happens to already-queued metadata or what the caller gets back, but that is a minor gap for a zero-arg operation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with a bulk 'clear pending' action.

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 states a specific action and its scope: remove all not-yet-started generation jobs, while leaving running clips alone. That distinguishes its effect from dream_generate/dream_edit, but it never names any sibling or explicitly frames itself as the 'cancel/clear queue' counterpart, so an agent must infer positioning from the list.

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?

It gives an implicit condition (items that have not started) but no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as letting jobs finish or checking dream_status first. There is no when-not-to-use and no mention of the sibling tools.

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

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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — asynchronous queueing with an immediate jobId return rather than the clips — and that file paths are absolute and read by the bridge. It omits permissions/auth needs, credit-charging side effects, and failure behavior when validation fails.

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?

Three compact clauses, zero padding, and the critical async behavior and the sibling routing are front-loaded before the path detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter async generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknown — that it returns a jobId immediately and that waiting is a separate call — and clarifies path semantics. It is nearly complete, missing only what happens on validation/credit failure and any permission requirements.

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 baseline is 3. The description only marginally adds: it clarifies that refs/frames paths are absolute and read by the bridge, which the schema does not state. The other seven top-level parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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+resource ('Queue a Seedance 2.5 generation') plus the execution context ('in the live Dreamina through the extension'), and explicitly separates itself from dream_wait. An agent can distinguish it from dream_wait without opening a schema.

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?

Routes explicitly to the alternative for the blocking case: 'Returns jobId immediately WITHOUT waiting for the clips — wait with dream_wait.' Clear context, but it gives no guidance on when to pick this over siblings like dream_edit, and no stated preconditions beyond that.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavioral context: the queue behavior when no Dreamina tab is live, the meaning of an expired license, and the fact that the queue self-resumes after activation. It also clarifies what extension.director contains (prompt formula, technique catalog, credits).

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 front-loaded with what state is reported, then gives the critical usage instruction, then covers the license edge case. Every sentence adds actionable information, and no space is wasted on redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the returned state fields and their operational significance. It covers normal operation, the no-tab failure mode, and the expired-license case, leaving the agent prepared to act on the status information.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter semantics to add and the baseline is 4. The description rightly focuses on state interpretation and usage rather than parameter 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 states a specific resource and its scope: bridge and extension state, including connection, Dreamina tab presence, queue contents, and extension.director details. It clearly distinguishes this status/inspection tool from sibling action tools like dream_generate, dream_edit, dream_wait, and dream_cancel.

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?

It explicitly says to call it BEFORE generating and explains the consequence of skipping that step: jobs pile up without a live Dreamina tab. It also gives a specific action path when extension.license is expired, including a URL and the fact that the queue resumes automatically.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: it polls the bridge up to a timeout, and a partial/intermediate result is explicitly not an error — an agent might otherwise treat it as a failure. It omits auth/permission needs and rate-limit or bridge-failure behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary outcome (file paths) and then the polling/partial-result caveat. The em-dash clarification earns its space by preventing a misread of the intermediate return.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly describes return values (file paths on completion, intermediate picture otherwise). This is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret it, though it could say more about what happens on timeout exhaustion or bridge errors.

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 50%: timeoutSec is documented in the schema with a default, but jobId has no description. The description reinforces the timeout's meaning by saying it polls until the timeout, but adds no format or origin detail for jobId, so it only marginally compensates.

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+resource: wait/poll for a job to finish and return file paths. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the non-blocking dream_status by describing polling until a timeout, but never names the sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Conveys the usage context (block until a job completes, re-call if not done) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer dream_status or dream_cancel over this blocking wait, nor any prerequisites.

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