text_to_video

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

The description mentions creating a task and returning outputs but does not disclose behavioral traits like cost implications, authentication needs, or potential side effects. With no annotations present, the description fails to compensate for missing behavioral context.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action, but could benefit from a structured breakdown of key outputs or usage flow.

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 tool's complexity (20 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too minimal. It does not provide enough information to understand how to use the tool effectively, such as parameter dependencies, behavior when polling is disabled, or format of output URLs.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings, use cases, or constraints. For a tool with 20 parameters, the lack of parameter guidance makes it nearly impossible to use correctly without external knowledge.

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: creating a Seedance task for text-to-video generation, with a clear verb ('Create'), resource ('Seedance task'), and outputs ('task id, status, output URLs'). It is distinctive from sibling tools (check_pricing, get_task, login), which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as specifying that it initiates a generation and that get_task should be used for status polling. The description lacks context on prerequisites or limitations.

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