create_sprite

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

Annotations already indicate no readOnly or destructive hint (false). The description adds context that the tool creates a sprite as a job, but does not disclose side effects or prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations.

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 first sentence captures the core purpose, but the description is lengthy (4-5 sentences) with extra details about downstream usage that could be omitted or placed elsewhere. A more concise version would improve efficiency.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain key parameters, job behavior, or return values. It mentions a 'job' but lacks detail about duration or results, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

Only the 'shape' parameter is described ('square' | 'circle'), but the schema has no enum and description lacks coverage for other parameters (project_path, path, width, height, color). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for most parameters.

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 it creates a procedural placeholder sprite for 2D games, specifying shape options. However, it includes downstream usage instructions (build_scene, camera, physics) that are not part of the tool's function, slightly diluting focus.

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 implies use for 2D games without external art, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The included usage pattern with build_scene offers guidance, but lacks exclusions.

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