remove_motion

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Delete motion' (destructive) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error conditions. The behavior beyond the basic action is not explained.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage details. Every word adds value.

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 deletion tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and parameter roles. It lacks mention of return values or error scenarios, but is otherwise adequate.

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 coverage is low (33%) but the description compensates by explaining the purpose of 'fields' and 'animationStyleIds' in context. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though 'nodeId' remains 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete motion from a node') and specifies two distinct ways to achieve it (via fields or animationStyleIds). It is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes from siblings like apply_keyframes or read_motion.

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 when to provide each parameter ('fields to remove manual keyframe tracks, and/or animationStyleIds to remove applied animation style instances'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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