Stage Anim Clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it declares destructive removal ('Drop'), persistence semantics ('Not saved until anim_save'), a scope exception (growth spans stay), and the side-effect profile ('Emits: nothing'). It stops short of saying whether the clear is undoable (stage_edit_undo exists) or what permissions/state it requires.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the destructive action and its scope come first, followed by persistence and side-effect facts in short parentheticals. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations, the description covers destruction, scope, persistence, and emitted events, and the return value need not be spelled out since an output schema exists. The unexplained required 'scene' parameter is the one remaining hole.

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 description must compensate. It fully explains 'name' (None = all objects, otherwise a single object's keys) but says nothing about the required 'scene' parameter beyond implicitly operating within a scene. Half the parameters are therefore still undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Drop ... keys') and resource (an object's animation keys), and explicitly covers both scopes: one object, or every object when name is None. It also names the page command (anim_clear) and notes that growth spans are excluded. The only gap is that it never distinguishes itself from nearby key-manipulation siblings such as stage_key_delete or stage_keys_set.

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?

'when name is None' gives an explicit condition that selects the clear-all behavior, and 'Not saved until anim_save' tells the caller the required follow-up step, effectively pointing at the sibling that persists the change. There is no explicit when-not or a named alternative for partial key removal, which keeps it below a 5.

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