save_sprite_as

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context that reduces ambiguity: the original file is never modified, and the destructive path is opt-in via overwrite with a no-clobber default. It does not explain what flatten actually strips or what is returned, and it never reconciles the 'untouched original' claim with the destructive annotation explicitly.

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?

Purpose and the key non-destructive guarantee are front-loaded, and the sentences are short and mostly free of filler. The trailing standalone overwrite note and the hard line wrapping make it slightly less tight than it could be.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation-ish operation, the description omits what happens on failure and what the result is (e.g., the written path), and leaves flatten undefined. The safety-critical behavior is covered, so it is functional but not complete for a 4-parameter file-writing tool.

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 50% (flatten and overwrite only carry 'Default: false.'), so the description must compensate. It does explain overwrite ('Replace new_filename if it already exists') and gestures at flatten ('optionally flattened'), but never defines what flattening does, and filename/new_filename get no path-format or source-sprite guidance. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a copy of a sprite under a new path') plus the optional transformation (flatten), and the two use cases (editable .aseprite to another .aseprite, snapshotting a version) separate it from the export_png/export_* siblings that produce different formats.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('exporting an editable .aseprite to another .aseprite, or snapshotting a version'), which tells the agent when this is the right tool versus the format-conversion exporters. There are no explicit when-not rules or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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