Vidu MCP

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 effectively adds context beyond basic functionality: it warns about API costs, specifies that BGM is only supported for 4-second videos, and explains default behaviors (e.g., random seed, aspect ratio defaults). This provides useful operational insights, though it could mention rate limits or error handling.

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 well-structured with sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized, with each sentence adding value (e.g., cost warning, parameter details). However, some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'Defaults to' for multiple parameters), slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage warnings, parameter details, and return values. However, it lacks information on output behavior (e.g., what task_id and video_url represent, error cases), which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by detailing all 8 parameters with clear semantics: it explains what each parameter does (e.g., 'Different templates have different call parameters'), provides constraints (e.g., prompt max length), defaults, and specific usage notes (e.g., area and beast are template-specific). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Generate a video from a template.' It specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'video from a template,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_text_to_video or generate_img_to_video by focusing on template-based generation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Only use when explicitly requested by the user.' It also includes a cost warning, which helps in decision-making. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., generate_img_to_video), so it lacks full alternative guidance.

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