video-prompt-expert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the core flow: compose a prompt, then generate an MP4, plus problem diagnosis. However, it omits important traits such as whether generation is synchronous, how results are returned, or any limits/costs, so transparency is only moderate.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose, but the trigger-word list is redundant for an API tool definition and the '多种创作场景与问题诊断' sentence is vague filler. It is not bloated, but not 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?

With 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin to let an agent know how to construct a valid call or what to expect in return. It provides no details on parameter effects, return format, or failure modes.

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?

Although the schema coverage is nominally 100%, every parameter description merely repeats the parameter name (e.g., 'seed', 'model'), providing no real meaning. The tool description adds no guidance on valid values, units, or how optional parameters like ratio, generateAudio, or executionExpiresAfter should be used.

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 writes professional AI video prompts and directly generates MP4 videos, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also mentions multiple creative scenarios and problem diagnosis, giving a clear sense of scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling generation/writing tools like seedance-video-gen.

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 lists trigger words and says it supports multiple creation scenarios, implying broad applicability, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling video/writing tools. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing conditions.

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