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 but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions the model ('火山方舟 Seedream') and platform restriction ('Ark-only'), but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, cost implications, output format, or whether it's a read/write operation. For a complex image generation tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence in Chinese. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes a platform restriction note. While efficient, it might be too brief for such a complex tool with many parameters and sibling alternatives, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 complex image generation/editing tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar siblings, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what '编辑图片' (edit images) means operationally, how generation differs from editing, what the output looks like, or how this tool relates to its siblings. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the model name which aligns with the 'model' parameter enum, but provides no additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: '使用火山方舟 Seedream 模型生成/编辑图片' (generate/edit images using Volcano Ark Seedream model). It specifies the model and action (generate/edit), but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'generate-img-seedream4', 'text-to-image', or 'image-to-image' that likely have overlapping functionality. The '(Ark-only)' qualifier adds specificity but not sibling differentiation.

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 versus alternatives. With multiple image generation siblings (generate-img-seedream4, text-to-image, image-to-image, image-dressing), there's no indication of which scenarios favor this tool. The '(Ark-only)' note suggests platform restriction but doesn't help choose between similar tools.

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