create_video_node

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

Beyond the annotations (which only cover mutation/idempotency/open-world traits), the description discloses concrete runtime behavior: reference-format normalization, numbering-to-material matching, certified/generated asset validation, parameter compliance checks, and an immediate read-back verification after creation. It also declares the critical non-action that it will not submit generation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the validation checklist, then the scope boundary — a logical, dense ordering with little filler. The single semicolon-chained sentence is information-rich but slightly heavy to parse.

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 13-parameter creation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the validation behavior and the key boundary of not triggering generation, so return values need not be explained. It could be more explicit about workflow ordering with submit_generation, but nothing essential is missing.

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 all 13 parameters including defaults and accepted values are already documented in the schema. The description restates reference-format normalization that the prompt parameter already documents, adding little beyond the structured fields; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('新建 Seedance 视频生成节点并连好素材'), and explicitly scopes itself apart from the generation-submitting sibling with '不会提交生成'. An agent can distinguish this from submit_generation or create_final_video without opening any schema.

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 closing '不会提交生成' makes the boundary with the generation-submission step clear, and the enumerated checks imply this is the setup step that precedes generation. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool or stating ordering requirements, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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