Outlines a rectangle on the outfit design layer, enabling precise placement of bordered shapes when creating pixel-art characters and animations.
Stroke (outline) a rectangle on the outfit design layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| slot | Yes | ||
| color | Yes | ||
| scale | No | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| plan_id | No | ||
| thickness | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic operation and adds the 'outfit design layer' context; it does not mention side effects, persistence, whether prior content is overwritten, coordinate-system details, or whether a slot/layer must be prepared first. For an unannotated tool this is a thin disclosure.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and target layer with no filler. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.
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?
With 11 parameters (7 required), zero annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is far from complete. The output schema exists, but the definition still leaves the agent guessing about coordinate semantics, color format (string vs integer array), thickness units, and what 'output_dir' and 'plan_id' control. The description needs substantial elaboration to be adequate.
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 adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters (x, y, width, height, color, thickness, scale, slot, name, plan_id, output_dir). The description must compensate for the undocumented schema, and it does not explain a single parameter's purpose, units, or interaction.
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 states a specific verb ('Stroke (outline)') and resource ('rectangle on the outfit design layer'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fill_rect and clear_rect. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for contrast.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fill_rect, draw_line, or clear_rect. There are no contextual conditions, prerequisites (e.g., whether a layer must exist), or exclusions, so an agent has no help choosing among the many drawing tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.