Remove an expression or animation from a Foundry Nuke knob, leaving the knob at its current value.
Remove an expression or animation from a knob, leaving it at its current value.
Args: node: node name. knob: knob name to clear.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| knob | Yes | knob name to clear. | |
| node | Yes | node name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover idempotence and non-destructiveness, but the description adds useful behavioral detail: the knob value is preserved after the expression or animation is removed. It does not cover permissions or error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple non-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 front-loaded and brief, with the main effect stated first. The Args block redundantly repeats the input schema, but it does not bloat the definition significantly.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the effect and value-preservation behavior. It could be strengthened by saying when to choose this over sibling set_expression or set_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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args section simply repeats the schema descriptions for node and knob. It adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 an expression or animation from a knob. It also distinguishes the operation from siblings like set_expression and set_keyframe by specifying removal and noting the knob is left at its current value.
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 description explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like set_expression, set_keyframe, or other knob-modification siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.