set_cel_position

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

Annotations establish this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) in a closed world, so the safety profile is partly covered. Beyond that the description says nothing: it does not reveal whether the position is relative to the layer, canvas, or tilemap origin, what happens to pixels pushed past the canvas edge, or whether linked cels are affected.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is efficient partly because it omits necessary content rather than by trimming redundancy.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and only two terse annotations. The description leaves the coordinate frame, cel identification (filename/layer/frame), and out-of-bounds behavior entirely unaddressed, which is inadequate for a 5-required-parameter write operation.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only surfaces x and y (implicitly, as the positional pair) and says nothing about filename, layer, or frame, leaving three of five required parameters with no semantic explanation anywhere.

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 ('Move') and resource ("a cel's image") with a clear positional target, so the core action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from neighboring tools such as offset_cels, move_layer, or set_cel_z_index, which all involve repositioning, so an agent gets no help disambiguating.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (a cel must already exist given filename/layer/frame), and no named alternative. The reader must infer from the name alone that this is a direct absolute-position setter rather than a relative offset.

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