bb_paint_pixelsSet individual pixels on a Blockbench texture using [x, y, color] coordinates to hand-draw precise pixel art and edit specific texture details.
Set individual pixels on a texture — the precise way to hand-draw pixel art. pixels is a list of [x, y, color] with color "#rrggbb" or [r,g,b] or [r,g,b,a].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pixels | Yes | ||
| target | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only describes the pixel data shape. It says nothing about prerequisites (must the target texture already exist?), reversibility/undo, whether existing pixels are overwritten, or performance on large lists.
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?
Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded before the data-format detail. No waste, though it could have surfaced the format as structured detail rather than a trailing clause.
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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and one parameter well, but omits target semantics, side effects, and undo behavior, leaving meaningful 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents the 'pixels' entry format ([x, y, color] with hex/rgb/rgba variants), which is genuinely useful, but leaves 'target' entirely unexplained (texture name vs id vs handle). Partial compensation warrants a middling score.
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 ('Set individual pixels on a texture') and frames itself as 'the precise way to hand-draw pixel art', which hints at its distinction from coarser texture tools like bb_draw_texture. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 phrase 'the precise way to hand-draw pixel art' implies when this is preferable to bulk operations, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.