Places individual pixels with specified coordinates and colors onto the design layer to create or modify pixel art.
Alias for paint_pixels — set {x,y,color} on the design layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| slot | Yes | ||
| scale | No | ||
| pixels | Yes | ||
| plan_id | No | ||
| output_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states it sets pixels on the design layer. It doesn't mention mutation side effects, required permissions, or the output format. The word 'set' implies a write operation but no specifics are given. Minimal disclosure for a tool that likely modifies state.
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 description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, earning a pass for brevity. However, the brevity borders on under-specification; it prioritizes being short over providing necessary details. It is structured clearly but lacks substantive content.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters, 3 required, an output schema, and no annotations. The description is far from adequate: it does not explain the pixel format, the role of 'name' and 'slot', or what the output represents. For a complex painting tool, this is critically incomplete.
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% and the description gives no information about any of the six parameters. It only mentions {x,y,color} conceptually, but does not map to the 'pixels' array format, 'name', 'slot', or other fields. Without any parameter explanation, the agent cannot infer how to correctly populate the inputs.
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's an alias for paint_pixels and specifies the action: setting {x,y,color} on the design layer. This distinguishes it from other painting tools like fill_rect or draw_line, though it references an existing sibling rather than describing its own unique function. It's clear but relies on the alias reference for full clarity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use set_pixels vs. the original paint_pixels. The description only says 'Alias for paint_pixels' without explaining whether they are interchangeable, which one to prefer, or any context for selection. Lacks any usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.