create_cel

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create an empty cel' without mentioning side effects (e.g., overwriting cels), permissions required, or error scenarios. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise: one sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and uses a clear format. It earns a high score but not perfect because the parameter list is somewhat sparse.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain return value, prerequisites (file/layer/frame existence), or error handling. It minimally covers the creation action but omits important usage context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by listing each parameter and its role (e.g., 'filename: Name of the Aseprite file to modify'). However, it provides minimal detail beyond the schema's names and types, no constraints or formatting rules.

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 the action ('create an empty cel') and the scope ('on a layer/frame'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like `clear_cel` or `copy_cel`. However, it assumes familiarity with the term 'cel' and does not explicitly differentiate, preventing a perfect score.

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 this tool versus alternatives like `copy_cel`, `clear_cel`, or `set_cel_opacity`. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or context for selection.

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