Plan a reference-aware sequence

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral trait 'deterministic', which is not present in annotations and is valuable for an agent relying on reproducibility. It does not contradict annotations and provides a genuine extra behavioral guarantee, so a score of 4 is warranted.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('create a deterministic 1–6 shot sequence') and then lists key attributes. No waste, no repetition, and it is immediately scannable. This is an exemplary concise description.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no property descriptions. The description captures the essential output (a sequence) and key concepts, but it does not explain what exactly the output looks like (e.g., a plan object), nor does it clarify how the required 'idea' feeds into planning. Sibling tools suggest a broader workflow, and without output schema, an agent lacks information about the return format. While annotations cover safety, the description leaves meaningful gaps in usage context, so completeness is moderate.

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?

Given schema description coverage of 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It alludes to 'reference bindings' (mapping to referenceBindings), 'timing' (shotCount and totalDurationSeconds), and 'continuity anchors' (continuityAnchor), but it does not clarify the role of 'idea' (a required parameter) or 'cameraStyle'. The description offers some semantic hints but leaves key parameters unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: to create a deterministic 1–6 shot sequence with explicit reference bindings, timing, continuity anchors, and end frames. The verb 'create' and resource 'sequence' are specific, and the mention of 'deterministic' and the shot range differentiates it from sibling tools like build_seedance_prompt (which likely focuses on prompt construction) and diagnose_seedance_prompt (which is for diagnostics). The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would warrant selecting an alternative. An agent is left to infer that 'plan' implies a pre-build step, but there is no explicit direction or exclusion, so usage guidance is largely absent.

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