generate_base_idle

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the input source, output destination, and that output includes separate layers and composed previews. However, it does not say whether outputs are overwritten, what scale does to the result, or what happens when masks are missing.

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 core import behavior and routing note are concise, but the opening sentence 'Author shared naked side-view idle as full separate layers + composed previews' is awkward and largely redundant with the clearer second sentence. Structure can be tightened by removing or rewriting it.

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?

Given an output schema, return values are covered, and the source/destination and sibling routing are specified. The main completeness gap is scale semantics and any prerequisite about the masks, which prevents fully informed invocation.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It connects output_dir to the output path, but it never explains scale or its default effect, leaving one of only two parameters semantically undocumented.

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 action and resource: imports user-authored 90x128 masks from spritemcp/base/ into output_dir/base_idle_90x128/. It also differentiates itself from generate_character by saying to prefer that tool for named characters.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer generate_character for named chars, and the 'imports user-authored... masks' phrasing implies this tool is for base idle generation from those masks. This is clear routing guidance relative to the relevant sibling.

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