Plan multi-scene video generation batches by defining scenes, model, aspect, duration, and resolution, with credit estimation for streamlined production.
Alias for flow_plan_batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| model | No | omni_flash | |
| aspect | No | 16:9 | |
| scenes | Yes | ||
| duration | No | ||
| background | No | ||
| resolution | No | 360p | |
| estimated_credits_per_scene | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.75.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it reveals nothing about side effects, authorization, rate limits, or data flow. The only behavioral claim is that it is an alias, which provides no concrete behavior for an agent to rely on.
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 text is short and syntactically simple, but this is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. A single pointer sentence without supporting structure does not adequately describe an 8-parameter tool.
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 tool with 8 parameters, one required field, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this description is severely incomplete. Although an output schema exists, the absence of purpose, usage, and parameter semantics leaves the agent unable to select or call this tool correctly.
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 0%, and the description names none of the eight parameters or their meaning. The agent cannot determine what 'scenes' should contain or how 'model', 'aspect', 'resolution', etc. affect output.
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 only says 'Alias for flow_plan_batch,' which establishes a pointer to another tool rather than stating what the tool does. It gives no verb, resource, or effect, and leaves the agent to inspect the sibling tool for any actual function.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use yenflow_plan_batch versus flow_plan_batch or other siblings. The alias phrase weakly implies interchangeability, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.