Edit keyframes

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

Annotations already declare the tool as destructive, non-idempotent, and non-read-only. The description adds meaningful domain behavior: a keyframe is a stored pose, adding copies the current pose, and multiple keyframes can be acted on at once. It stops short of explicitly warning that deleting keyframes destroys stored poses, but the pose/file-keeping sentence and the annotations together convey that.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and action list. It is efficient, though the sentence about a keyframe number being a stored pose is slightly abstract and could be clearer.

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 multi-action tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential conceptual model: what a keyframe is, how add behaves, and how to act on several at once. It does not cover error conditions or undo behavior, but those are not required for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining what a keyframe number represents and what "frames" does for batch operations, which helps the agent reason beyond the raw field 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 gives a clear verb-and-resource purpose (change the timeline by adding, deleting, duplicating, or moving keyframes) and enumerates the exact actions. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling keyframe_timing, which likely also edits keyframe-related data, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 action list implicitly tells the agent what operations are available, and the note about using "frames" for multiple keyframes is helpful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer keyframe_timing or pose tools instead.

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