reverse_keyframes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. 'Reverse keyframe order' essentially restates the name. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what happens with incomplete keyframe sets, or any performance implications. Almost no behavioral context is added.

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 extremely concise—only three words. While there is no wasted text, it is so short that it fails to provide adequate information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema) and the minimal description, the coverage is severely lacking. No information about return values, side effects, or usage context is provided, making it nearly useless for an AI agent.

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 0%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. The required 'property' parameter is not described. None of the five parameters (compId, compName, layerName, layerIndex) are given any semantic meaning in the description.

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 'Reverse keyframe order' clearly states that the tool reverses the order of keyframes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like offset_keyframes and scale_keyframe_timing by the specific action. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., which keyframes, on what property/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 like copy_keyframes or offset_keyframes. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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