reverse_keyframes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('reverse the order') but does not clarify if this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how it affects animation timing, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation on keyframes), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or result format, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool correctly in a production environment.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID of the composition'). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'propertyPath' relates to keyframes. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('reverse the order') and target ('keyframes'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'offset_keyframes', 'scale_keyframe_timing', or 'batch_keyframes', which also manipulate keyframes but in different ways, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing existing keyframes, or compare it to other keyframe-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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