create_seedance_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the core action ('Create a task') without revealing important traits such as whether the task is asynchronous, what the return value contains, if any polling is required, or how to check status using sibling tools. This is a significant gap for a creation operation.

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 states the purpose directly. It contains zero filler, no redundant details, and is appropriately concise for a one-line summary. Every word 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 a creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., a task ID), whether the operation is asynchronous, or how to relate this task to get_seedance_task. While the schema covers parameter options, the overall context—especially post-creation flow—is missing.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage: every parameter (model, prompt, image_url, resolution, aspect_ratio) includes a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not improve or supplement 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('a video generation task using PiAPI Seedance 2'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_seedance_task (retrieval), download_file (file retrieval), and get_audit_logs (history/audit). The purpose is unambiguous and unique.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Create' — the agent can infer this is the tool to initiate a new video generation task. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides no direct guidance on selection beyond the basic action.

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