delete_keyframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the mutation but omits whether a keyframe must already exist, what happens if none exists at the given frame, whether the deletion is undoable, or what side effects occur on the animation curve. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the action first and then listing parameters. The Args block is compact, though the parameter blurbs are so thin that they barely earn their place.

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 thin. It does not explain required preconditions (e.g., that the keyframe must exist), the effect on the curve, or error behavior, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the schema only provides titles like 'Node Path', 'Parm Name', and 'Frame'. The description's parameter blurbs ('Node path.', 'Parameter name.', 'Frame number to delete.') mostly restate those titles and add no meaningful format, type, or constraint information beyond what the schema already shows.

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 names a specific verb (Delete) and resource (keyframe) with scope (at a specific frame), which is enough to tell it apart from set_keyframe and get_keyframes implicitly. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as set_keyframe or get_keyframes, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb alone.

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