spine_delete_keyframes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: omission of `times` destroys the whole timeline, and remaining keys' curves preserve shape. It omits irreversibility, whether deletions are atomic, and permission/auth requirements for a destructive operation.

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-loaded with the core behavior in the first sentence, then an Args block that earns its space per parameter. Slight redundancy with the schema's own argument listing, but no wasted prose.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 5-param destructive mutation with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the key semantic gap (omitted `times` = full timeline) but leaves permission requirements and failure modes unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it adds real meaning for `timeline` (enum-like naming convention tied to spine_set_keyframes) and `target` (empty for event/drawOrder) plus the unit for `times`. However, `project` and `animation` are left entirely to the schema, and `times` format/edge cases (e.g., nonexistent times) are unaddressed.

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 and resource ('Remove keys from one timeline') with scope detail: individual times in seconds, or the entire timeline when `times` is omitted. It also implicitly disambiguates from spine_set_keyframes by naming it as the naming reference for timelines.

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 when-to-use is implied by the deletion semantics and the 'omit times to wipe the timeline' branch, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g., use spine_set_keyframes to overwrite instead of delete) or on preconditions/confirmation.

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