Stage Key Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses persistence semantics (not saved until anim_save), the reply shape ({deleted} count, 0 when empty), and the emission side effect ('Emits: nothing'). It omits permission requirements and error/undo behavior for a destructive operation, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 plus a terse emission note, front-loaded with the core action and the t=None branch. Every fragment carries information; the parenthetical page-command reference is slightly internal-flavored but aids cross-referencing.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the definition covers persistence, return value, and side effects, but leaves scene/name semantics and reversibility unaddressed. An output schema exists, so restating the delete count was not strictly necessary but does not hurt.

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, and it fully explains the critical parameter t including its None sentinel meaning. The other two required parameters, scene and name, are left undocumented in both schema and description, so compensation is only partial.

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 and resource ('Delete an object's key at time t, or all its keys when t is None') and names the underlying page command, so the agent knows exactly what is removed. It distinguishes itself from stage_key_set by virtue of being the removal counterpart, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 t=None branch is spelled out as a mode switch (one key vs all keys), and 'Not saved until anim_save' tells the agent a follow-up call is required. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs stage_keys_set/stage_anim_clear guidance and no statement about whether this is undoable via stage_edit_undo.

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