Seedream/Seedance MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The statement 'Ark-only 模式下不支持该工具' suggests the tool may be unavailable or non-functional in certain contexts, but provides no information about what the tool actually does, its effects, limitations, or operational behavior when it IS supported.

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?

While technically concise (one sentence), the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to provide any functional information about the tool, making it ineffective despite its brevity. The single sentence doesn't earn its place as it doesn't describe the tool's purpose or usage.

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 description is completely inadequate for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It provides no functional information about what the tool does, when to use it, or what results to expect. Given the complexity suggested by the name 'action-imitation' and three required parameters, this description fails to provide any meaningful context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (referenceAction, targetCharacter, style) having clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Ark-only 模式下不支持该工具' (This tool is not supported in Ark-only mode) provides no information about what the tool actually does. It's a restriction statement rather than a functional description, making it completely misleading about the tool's purpose. The name 'action-imitation' suggests some form of action replication, but the description contradicts this by stating it's unsupported.

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. It only states that it's not supported in a specific mode, but gives no information about when it IS supported or appropriate to use. There's no comparison to sibling tools or indication of the tool's intended use case.

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