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. While it mentions the asynchronous nature, it doesn't describe what 'asynchronous task' entails operationally - no information about task queuing, expected completion times, error handling, or how results are delivered. For a complex 12-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient Chinese sentence that conveys the core functionality. It's appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, given the tool's complexity, more context would be beneficial, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 video generation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (task ID? status? video URL?), how to handle the asynchronous result, or any operational constraints. The description should provide more context about the asynchronous workflow and expected outputs.

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 additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how imageUrl enables image-to-video) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation.

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 action ('generate video') and specifies the model ('Seedance model') and execution mode ('asynchronous task'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate-image and text-to-image by focusing on video generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from generate-digital-human, which might also produce video content.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose video generation over image generation tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints for using this asynchronous video generation service.

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