copy_region

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: coordinates are sprite-global, transparent pixels don't overwrite, destination cel created if missing. However, it omits details about out-of-bounds behavior, target layer existence, and potential side effects. With no annotations, it provides moderate transparency.

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 well-structured with a behavioral overview followed by a parameter list. It is informative but slightly lengthy; however, every sentence adds value. The information is front-loaded for clarity.

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 the complexity (11 params, 9 required) and no output schema, the description lacks information about return values, success indicators, or error conditions. It covers usage well but is incomplete regarding outcomes and limitations.

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?

The description includes a detailed parameter list with explanations for each of the 11 parameters, compensating for the schema's 0% coverage. It adds meaning beyond the schema by describing what each parameter does, e.g., 'filename: Aseprite file to modify'.

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 tool's purpose: 'Copy a rectangular region of pixels to another position, layer, or frame.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'move_region' (move vs copy) and 'erase_region'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'move_region' or 'copy_cel'. The description implies usage for copying regions but does not provide when-not-to-use or contrast with similar tools.

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