delete_cel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful consequence that the layer itself survives and only becomes empty at that frame, but says nothing about reversibility or side effects on linked cels.

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 short sentence with the verb-resource pair front-loaded and the clarifying consequence in a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description conveys the core effect but omits error behavior, whether the cel can be restored, and how the filename/layer/frame arguments are validated.

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% and all three parameters (filename, layer, frame) are required and undocumented. The description adds no parameter detail at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap even though the names are largely self-explanatory.

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 (cel) and adds the effect 'the layer becomes empty at that frame,' which usefully separates this from clear_layer/remove_layer semantics. It doesn't name a sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must still infer the distinction from context.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as clear_layer, remove_layer, or remove_frame. Usage is only implied by the parenthetical about the resulting empty layer.

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