remove_curve_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: the index-shift side effect of a non-idempotent delete and the 'existed' flag semantics that separate a genuine removal from a silent no-op. It stops short of noting persistence/auth details, but the return fields (removed, saved) imply them.

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?

Front-loads the action and resource, follows with the alternative-parameter guidance, then the return shape. Every sentence contributes; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 destructive, 4-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, argument trade-offs, side effects, and the response fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the call is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between the mutually exclusive key_index and time parameters (index instability makes time the safer address) rather than merely restating them, and it surfaces the return fields even though an output schema is absent.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (one keyframe from a curve channel) and immediately frames itself relative to siblings by calling itself 'the inverse of add_curve_key' and pointing at get_curve_keys. An agent can distinguish it from add_curve_key, remove_pose_curve, and get_curve_keys without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete routing and ordering advice: address by time rather than key_index, or iterate from highest index down, because indices shift after removal. It also names get_curve_keys as the source for indices/times. This is explicit when-to-use and how-to-avoid-mistakes guidance, not implied.

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