remove_manual_keyframe_track

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate destructive behavior. It adds value by disclosing the return shape ({ ok, nodeId }) and clarifying that field targets the same field as apply_manual_keyframe_track, which helps the agent understand the effect.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence conveys necessary information without redundancy. It's a model of conciseness.

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 output schema, the description adequately covers what is removed, how the field selector works, and the return value. It doesn't detail error cases or idempotency, but combined with the annotations and schema it's sufficiently complete for straightforward invocation.

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 100% with descriptions for both nodeId and field. The description adds a cross-reference to apply_manual_keyframe_track, reinforcing that the field parameter matches its sibling's semantics, which is useful beyond the schema alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource: 'manual Figma Motion keyframe track for a given field on a node.' It also distinguishes this from siblings like remove_animation_style by explicitly naming the target and cross-referencing apply_manual_keyframe_track.

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 when to use this tool (removing a manual keyframe track) and clarifies that the field parameter uses the same target semantics as apply_manual_keyframe_track, guiding coordination. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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