delete_keyframe

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action. It does not warn that deletion is destructive/irreversible, state whether the frame must currently have a keyframe, or describe error/return behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the action stated before a clean Args block. No extraneous content, though the arg descriptions are so thin that brevity comes at the cost of useful semantics.

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 3-parameter operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., existing keyframe), side effects, or success/failure signals, and it offers no guidance relative to sibling keyframe tools.

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?

The Args section provides one-line glosses ('Node path.', 'Parameter name.', 'Frame number to delete.') that essentially restate parameter names and add little beyond the input schema's types and titles. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate with format or value-range details but does not.

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 specific verb and object: 'Delete a keyframe at a specific frame.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_keyframes and set_keyframe/set_keyframes tools by naming the delete action and the frame-targeted scope.

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 about when to choose this tool over siblings. It does not mention that it is for removing an existing keyframe, nor contrast it with set_keyframe or set_keyframes, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name.

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