reverse_keyframes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states 'Reverse keyframe order', which implies mutation of keyframe order but does not explain side effects, whether it affects multiple layers, how it interacts with existing keyframe selections, or whether it requires certain property formats. The lack of any additional behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is so underspecified that it fails to provide necessary details. Conciseness should not come at the expense of essential information; here, the extreme brevity makes the description minimally useful, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, no annotations, and five parameters with no descriptions, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not mention the target property, layer identification, or any sequencing constraints. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full operational context, especially compared to the rich set of sibling keyframe tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the five parameters (compId, compName, property, layerName, layerIndex) are documented in the schema. The description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent without clues about what values are expected or how they relate to each other. This is a complete failure to add meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 the verb 'Reverse' and the resource 'keyframe order', which clearly indicates the core action. It somewhat distinguishes from sibling tools like 'offset_keyframes' or 'scale_keyframe_timing' by specifying reversal, but does not explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is clear for a simple operation, though it could be more specific about scope (e.g., which property or layer).

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 such as 'offset_keyframes', 'scale_keyframe_timing', or 'copy_keyframes'. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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