aaddyy_seedance_video_generator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose cost behavior (per-second pricing by quality and mode, ~21 credits), which is genuinely useful. However it omits operational traits such as generation latency, auth/quota requirements, and what the call returns, leaving meaningful gaps for a generation tool.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, mode breakdown, then pricing. Every sentence carries information with no filler; slight density around the credit estimate is the only minor cost.

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 13-parameter generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves most parameters, the return value, and operational constraints unexplained. An agent can pick a mode but lacks enough to invoke the remaining arguments 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 only 15%: 11 of 13 parameters (audio, images, videos, quality, duration, the *_urls fields, aspect_ratio, generate_audio) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description elaborates on mode (already fully documented in the schema) and hints at 'quality' via pricing, but does not compensate for the large coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Generate videos") plus the model (Seedance 2.0), and enumerates the three modes. No sibling tool generates video, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the surrounding image/design tools.

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?

Clearly maps each mode to its required input type ("text-to-video: prompt only, image-to-video: 1–2 frames, reference-to-video: images + videos + audio"), effectively telling the agent when to pick each mode. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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