delete_frames

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully widens the perceived blast radius by noting that a tag, list, or range can be deleted in one call, but it says nothing about reversibility/undo, the save-to-disk side effect, or per-backend behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the verb and the four modes come first. Given an 8-parameter destructive tool, it is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but there is no wasted text.

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 zero-required-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but not the operational context: no mention of undo, of the save/batch side effect, or of mutual exclusivity among the targeting parameters. The schema carries most of the weight.

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%, so each of the 8 parameters is already documented in-schema; baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of delete modes loosely maps to frames/from/to/tag but adds no format or precedence detail (e.g. what happens if multiple selectors are supplied).

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?

Specific verb (deletes) plus resource (frames) with the four targeting modes enumerated — single frame, range, list, or tag — which tells the agent the tool's blast radius. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent destructive siblings like delete_cel, delete_layer, or delete_tag, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: it does not say which selector to prefer (e.g. use from/to for a contiguous range vs frames for an arbitrary list), nor does it mention the live-vs-batch distinction in the backend parameter. The agent must infer invocation strategy entirely from the schema.

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