Auto-crop the canvas to the bounding box of all non-transparent content across every frame. Use it to remove empty space and tighten sprite dimensions before export.
Auto-crop the canvas to the bounding box of all non-transparent content (across every frame).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / filename / titleRemoved value: -"Filename"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"trim_spriteArguments"v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered by structured data. The description adds real behavioral context by specifying that trimming spans every frame and is driven by non-transparent content, but it omits the critical consequence for a destructive op: that cropped-away pixels and canvas regions are discarded and any frame offsets shift.
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 front-loaded sentence with the core verb first and the parenthetical scope qualifier second; no filler or 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?
For a destructive, single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation and its frame-wide scope adequately but leaves out the consequences of the destructive annotation (data loss, positional shifts) and any hint about the filename argument. Adequate but with visible gaps.
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?
With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden but says nothing about 'filename' — not whether it is a path, a sprite name, or relative to the loaded document. The parameter is conventional enough to be guessed, so this is a gap rather than a failure.
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 ('Auto-crop the canvas to the bounding box of all non-transparent content') with a clear scope qualifier ('across every frame'), so the effect is unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling crop_sprite by being automatic rather than manual, but never names or contrasts that alternative explicitly.
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?
The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus crop_sprite or resize_canvas, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the mechanism described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.