Set sprite properties

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'update' implying mutation but does not clarify side effects, partial updates, error conditions (e.g., if the sprite doesn't exist), or whether changes are reversible. Critical information for a mutating tool is missing.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified. It is not structured to guide usage, and the ellipsis suggests incomplete coverage. While short, the brevity comes at the expense of necessary detail.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what each property means, the expected value ranges, or the effect of omitting properties. Missing output schema and no guidance on invocation make it hard for an agent to call correctly without additional information.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It mentions a few parameters (position, size, direction, visibility) but skips volume, draggable, layerOrder, rotationStyle, and does not explain units, ranges, or constraints for any. The description adds minimal value over the schema's bare type definitions.

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 it updates sprite properties and lists representative examples (position, size, direction, visibility). It distinguishes the resource (sprite) from generic target-related tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from patch_target which may overlap.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_target or set_stage. The description provides no context on selection criteria, e.g., whether this is the go-to setter for sprite properties or if patch_target is preferred for more complex changes.

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