Delete Keyframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well. It reveals the potentially destructive default ('Omitting all frame bounds deletes every key on that track'), the non-obvious matching behavior ('fractional key times are not rounded into the selection'), and the return shape '{removed, track}'. This meaningfully exceeds what the schema alone communicates.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, selection semantics, default destructive behavior, and return shape. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical ground: all three selection modes, precision behavior, the all-or-nothing default, and the response format. The 'handle' target parameter is left to the schema, but the schema documents it thoroughly. The only notable gap is the absence of any mention of reversibility/undo, though an undo sibling exists in the toolset.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the interplay between frame/start_frame/end_frame — exact match, inclusive range, or full-track deletion — which the individual parameter descriptions ('Single frame to remove', 'Inclusive lower bound') do not convey. It also frames the path vs param_id/component dichotomy up front.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair — 'Remove keys' — and immediately clarifies the two selection mechanisms (full path vs legacy param_id/component). This cleanly distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_track (removes whole tracks) and set_keyframe (adds keys), though it does so implicitly rather than by naming an alternative.

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 solid parameter-level usage guidance: integer frame for exact-time, start_frame/end_frame for inclusive range, and omitting all bounds to delete every key. However, it never addresses when to choose this tool over siblings such as delete_track or edit_fcurve_keys, so the tool-vs-alternative selection context is left implied.

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