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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether selecting a keyframe overwrites an existing start/end frame, whether the previous frame is detached, or what happens on failure. Most importantly, the required expectedVersion concurrency token is never explained.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and target slot front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, but that conciseness comes at the cost of missing details rather than from tight editing of complete information.

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?

This is a state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, including an unexplained optimistic-concurrency field. For that complexity level the one-sentence description is well short of what an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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% across five parameters, four of them required. The description only illuminates assetId and implies the 'which' enum (start/end); shotId, projectId, and especially expectedVersion are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a concrete verb ('use ... as') and the exact slot being modified ('the shot's start or end frame'), and identifies the input as an image asset. It is distinguishable from siblings like shot.generate_keyframe and shot.remove_keyframe, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to select an existing asset versus generating a keyframe with shot.generate_keyframe, nor when to use shot.remove_keyframe. The parenthetical 'usually a keyframe variant' is the only hint about appropriate input, and prerequisites are absent.

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