cascadeur_remove_keys

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: 'Frame 0 is protected' identifies a special-case constraint, and 'save a checkpoint first' reinforces the irreversibility implied by destructiveHint=true. It does not contradict the annotations and provides context an agent needs before mutating keyframes.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the safety warning is placed second, giving the agent both the action and the key constraint in the minimum possible space.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is minimally viable: it states the operation, protects frame 0, and advises a checkpoint. However, it does not specify how tracks should be named, what happens when frame 0 is included (skipped or error), or how success/failure is reported.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate, but it only hints at the 'tracks' parameter via 'explicit tracks' and says nothing about the 'frames' parameter, its relationship to keys, or valid frame semantics. The array schemas are left to carry the entire meaning.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Remove keys from explicit tracks.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cascadeur_set_keys (opposite) and cascadeur_list_tracks (inspection). The qualifier 'explicit tracks' signals the operation is limited to the tracks supplied, not implied ones.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as cascadeur_set_keys or cascadeur_set_pose, and no exclusionary context. The only operational advice is 'save a checkpoint first,' which is a safety precondition rather than a tool-selection guideline.

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