design_remove_keyframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies the operation as a mutation ('Remove'), but says nothing about error handling (e.g., missing keyframe), reversibility, side effects on the timeline, or required permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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, efficient sentence with no waste. However, its brevity also reflects the under-specification noted in other dimensions, so it is not maximally helpful.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It leaves parameter meanings, usage conditions, and behavioral details unexplained.

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%, and the description only loosely maps to two of the three parameters: 'layer property' suggests layerId and property, but the 'time' parameter is not mentioned at all. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a specific keyframe from a layer property'), which clearly distinguishes it from broader keyframe operations like clear_keyframes. It doesn't name or differentiate against sibling tools explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_clear_keyframes or design_set_keyframe. The word 'specific' hints at targeted removal, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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