delete_keyframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses that the operation is a scene write, is undoable, requires a finite float frame for sub-frame precision, returns an error without writing if the frame is missing, and advises verification by re-reading the keyframes list. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured, with key details separated into short sentences. It avoids fluff and is front-loaded with the main purpose. The mention of 'PR 19' is cryptic and not explained, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. While the description covers behavior and the 'frame' constraint, it omits the meaning of ctx, path, and parameter, and does not specify success return values. For a mutation tool with no structured schema support, this is incomplete for confident use.

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. It adds specific meaning only for the 'frame' parameter (finite float, sub-frame exact point). The other three required parameters (ctx, path, parameter) are left entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap for invoking the tool correctly.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'keyframe at specified frame', making it obvious what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_keyframe and get_keyframes by specifying the deletion operation.

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 behavioral constraints (e.g., frame must be finite float, missing frame returns error) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_keyframe or set_keyframes. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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