Seedream/Seedance MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description only mentions a mode restriction and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as what the tool does, its effects (e.g., creation, modification), authentication needs, rate limits, or output behavior. This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with its only piece of information. There is no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient in structure, though it lacks substantive content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, its purpose, or how to use it effectively. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context, but it does not, leaving critical gaps in understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for all four parameters (e.g., '数字人行为描述' for prompt). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not mention parameters at all. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, even without param info in the description.

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' (Ark-only mode does not support this tool) does not state what the tool does. It only provides a restriction about when it cannot be used, offering no information about its actual purpose or function. This is a tautology that restates nothing about the tool's name or title, making it completely unhelpful for understanding the tool's intent.

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 a partial usage guideline by stating the tool is not supported in 'Ark-only mode,' but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, what contexts it is intended for, or any prerequisites. It lacks explicit guidance on when/when-not to use it, making it insufficient for effective tool selection.

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