draw_pixels_at

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

No annotations provided. Description implies a write operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwrite vs. blend), coordinate system, or color format. The create_if_missing parameter hints at behavior but lacks detail.

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?

Description is brief and includes an args section with parameter names. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but could be slightly more structured.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical information: return value, coordinate system, color format, and behavior on missing cel. This is insufficient for correct 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%. The description adds minimal meaning: 'pixels: List of pixel data with x/y/color' provides some context, but other parameters (filename, layer_name, frame_index) are self-explanatory. Overall, low additional value.

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?

Clearly states 'Draw pixels on a specific layer/frame', which specifies the action and target, distinguishing it from siblings like draw_pixels (likely current layer/frame).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., draw_pixels, draw_line_at). The description only lists parameters without context.

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