paint_tile_pixels

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions tile-local coordinates and the pixels parameter format, but lacks critical details: whether this is additive or overwriting, what happens to existing pixels, if there are any side effects, or performance implications.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail the important 'pixels' parameter. No extraneous words earn their place.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, it has 6 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings. The description does not cover return value, error states, interaction with layers/frames, or how it relates to similar tools like draw_pixels or stamp_pattern.

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%, so the description is the sole source of parameter semantics. It explains the 'pixels' parameter structure and the optional 'color' fallback, but does not clarify 'filename', 'layer', 'tile_index', or 'frame'. The explanation adds value but leaves many parameters 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 ('draw individual pixels') and the resource ('tile's artwork') with spatial context ('tile-local coordinates'), distinguishing it from sibling drawing tools that operate on different scales (e.g., draw_pixels for general canvas, fill_area for filling).

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like draw_pixels, fill_area, or draw_brush. The description does not specify any prerequisites, common use cases, or when to avoid this tool.

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