Build a Seedance video prompt brief

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context with 'deterministic' and clarifies that it does not actually generate video, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that efficiently states purpose and key output components, followed by a short clarifying disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is too high-level. It gives a good overview but does not explain how parameters affect the generated brief, nor does it describe the brief's structure well enough for an agent to confidently choose and invoke the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for 9 undocumented parameters. It mentions 'camera' and 'audio' as output areas and 'rough video idea' for the required 'idea' parameter, but it does not explain parameters like useCase, workflow, aspectRatio, or referenceConstraints, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') with a clear resource ('a rough video idea') and output ('a structured, deterministic Seedance prompt brief'). It also explicitly states what it does not do ('does not generate video'), distinguishing it from other tools and clarifying scope.

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 when to use it: when you have a rough video idea and need a structured prompt brief. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like search_prompts or get_prompt, nor does it state conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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