copy_cel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds that the copied data includes image and position, but it omits whether the destination cel is overwritten, what happens if the cel is missing, or any permission requirements.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core operation and containing no filler. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it chooses to convey.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how filename identifies the sprite, what happens to an existing destination cel, or any error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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% for four required parameters. The description implies meanings for from_frame, to_frame, and layer, but it never names them and completely omits the filename parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Copy a cel's image') and clarifies scope ('from one frame to another on the same layer'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name a sibling alternative to distinguish it from tools like link_cels or duplicate_frame.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as link_cels, offset_cels, or tween_cels. The description only states the operation, leaving usage context to inference.

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