capcut_remove_keyframes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the name by explaining that removal reverts the property to a static value from clip/set_props, which is a key side effect. It does not mention error handling, idempotency, or what happens if no keyframes exist, but for a simple removal operation the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 a single sentence that leads with the action and specifies the scope and result. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 simple removal tool, the description covers the main behavior, the target property, and the revert outcome. It does not mention edge cases, error behavior, or return values, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, the description is reasonably complete. The sibling tools (add_keyframe, set_props) provide context, and the description aligns well with that ecosystem.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'property' and 'segment' implicitly, but does not explicitly name the parameters or explain 'draft'. The enum values for property are self-explanatory, but the description fails to give complete parameter semantics, especially for draft and the relationship between parameters. It partially adds meaning but not enough to fully bridge the gap.

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 action ('Remove all keyframes') and the target ('for one property on a segment'), which distinguishes it from the sibling capcut_add_keyframe. It also specifies the scope (all keyframes for a single property) and the result (reverts to a static value), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context on what the tool accomplishes and even notes the source of the static value (clip/set_props), which implies when it is appropriate to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for removing individual keyframes or handling other scenarios, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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