delete_keyframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the destructive action ('Delete') and the important edge case that omitting frame deletes all keyframes. However, it does not mention irreversibility, which keys/channels are affected, or behavior when no keyframes exist. The special 'all keyframes' behavior is a positive but the destructive profile is underexplored.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact args list. It contains no fluff, though the args section is slightly redundant with the schema. Overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is deleted and how parameters control it. It lacks explicit mention of side effects, reversibility, or scope (e.g., only the target object's animation data), which would make it fully complete for an agent deciding to call it.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both arguments: object_name is 'Target object' and frame is 'Frame to delete (None = all keyframes)'. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema properties, especially the None-sentinel semantics.

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 verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('keyframes'), and defines the scope ('at a specific frame or all keyframes'). It is directly distinguishable from sibling tools like set_keyframe, which adds keyframes, and go_to_frame, which navigates. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this to remove animation keyframes', no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools like set_keyframe or clear functions. The intended usage is implied by the name and description, but not stated.

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