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 does not disclose any behavioral traits—it doesn't explain what the tool does, its effects, permissions required, rate limits, or output format. It only mentions a mode restriction, which is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise but under-specified—it's a single sentence that fails to convey the tool's purpose or usage. While it's brief, it doesn't earn its place by providing necessary information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, making this inefficient rather than appropriately sized.

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 complexity implied by the tool name and sibling tools (e.g., image processing), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states a restriction, it fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand or use the tool effectively. The description does not compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 parameter descriptions in Chinese ('模特图片URL' for modelImageUrl and '服装图片URL' for garmentImageUrl). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3. The description does not compensate or detract from the schema's 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 'Ark-only 模式下不支持该工具' (This tool is not supported in Ark-only mode) does not state what the tool does. It's a restriction notice rather than a functional description. The name 'image-dressing' suggests dressing an image, but the description provides no clarification about the tool's actual purpose or how it differs from siblings like 'image-to-image' or 'generate-image'.

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 only states that the tool is not supported in Ark-only mode, with no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not provide any context on appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'image-to-image' or 'generate-image'. This leaves the agent with no actionable usage information.

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