remove_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the core action but omits any side effects, such as whether the deletion is irreversible, how it affects other frames (e.g., renumbering), or what happens to the animation. This is a destructive operation and lacks essential transparency.

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 clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the key action.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to convey important context like irreversibility or impact on the animation. While the tool is simple and the schema covers the parameter, the missing side-effect information makes the description incomplete for real-world decision-making.

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 schema describes frame_number as 'Frame number to remove (1-based)', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove a frame from the active sprite' uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('frame') with clear scope ('active sprite'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_frame and list_frames. The action is unambiguous and purpose is immediately clear.

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 implies the tool is used when a frame needs to be deleted from the active sprite. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There are no exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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