Delete a specific keyframe from an effect property in Premiere Pro by specifying track, clip, effect, property, and keyframe index.
Remove a keyframe from an effect property
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index | |
| effectIndex | Yes | Effect/component index | |
| propertyName | Yes | Property display name | |
| keyframeIndex | Yes | Index of the keyframe to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Remove' implies a mutation, but the description does not disclose whether the removal is reversible, how indices shift after removal, whether it requires an effect to already be applied, or any permission/error behavior.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are fully documented by the schema.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about behavior and side effects. The schema is rich, but the description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation in a complex editing environment.
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%, so the six parameters (clipIndex, trackType, trackIndex, effectIndex, propertyName, keyframeIndex) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a keyframe from an effect property.' An agent can tell it apart from get_keyframes or add_keyframe by the verb, but the description does not explicitly name or differentiate siblings such as add_keyframe, get_keyframes, or set_keyframe_interpolation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g. an effect must exist on the clip) or the related tools for adding, inspecting, or changing keyframe interpolation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.