text_to_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions what is returned (task id, status, output URLs) but fails to note any async behavior, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a creation tool, 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core action and return values. It avoids wasted words, though it is perhaps too brief given the tool's parameter complexity. Still, it earns a high score for conciseness.

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 tool with 20 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain task lifecycle, how parameters affect behavior, or what 'status' values might be returned. This leaves the agent without critical context for proper invocation.

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 only 10% (2 of 20 parameters have descriptions), so the description was expected to compensate. However, it provides no details about key parameters like model, prompt, aspect_ratio, or duration_seconds, offering no guidance beyond the tool's name itself.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'Seedance task on RunAPI (text to video)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task (retrieve) and check_pricing (pricing). It immediately conveys the tool's primary function.

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 implies usage for text-to-video generation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context of sibling tools and the 'Create' verb offer some clarity, but explicit recommendations are missing.

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