Remove a figure

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious consequence: attached figures are detached and kept rather than cascade-deleted. It stops short of saying whether the removal is undoable via history_undo.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the batch variant. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the key side effect and the batch mode. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and reversibility, both of which matter for a destructive operation.

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 uid, frame, and project are already documented. The description only restates/expands the 'frames' parameter behavior, which the schema itself also describes, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 figure') plus the scope ('from a keyframe'), so it is clearly not figure_add or figure_duplicate. It never names a sibling tool, so the differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explained: 'Give "frames" to remove it from several keyframes at once' guides one parameter choice, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over figure_transform/keyframe_edit or what happens when the figure does not exist on that keyframe.

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