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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a non-obvious side effect: 'Removing the last keyframe clears the speed_keyframes array entirely (restoring 1× playback).' It also clarifies the frame coordinate system to prevent off-by-one mistakes. It does not cover error behavior when no keyframe exists at the given frame, but the main destructive consequence is made transparent.

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 two focused sentences with the action and object front-loaded. The parenthetical about frame alignment and the final side-effect sentence both earn their place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 three-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the frame context, links it to related tools, and warns about the last-keyframe behavior. The remaining gap is unspecified behavior when no keyframe exists at the given frame, but the essential invocation details are present.

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 already documents all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantic value by reinforcing that `frame` uses the same project-timeline coordinate system as related tools, but it does not substantially expand on the schema's parameter explanations.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Remove the speed-ramp keyframe at `frame` ... on a video layer.' It distinguishes itself from generic keyframe removers by specifying the speed-ramp keyframe category and cross-referencing add_speed_keyframe and inspect_layers.

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 useful context by noting that `frame` is 'the same value add_speed_keyframe and inspect_layers report,' and it implies the tool is for speed-ramp keyframes on video layers. However, it does not explicitly name alternative removal tools or state when not to use them, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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