invert_colors

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains parameter behavior (e.g., layer_name defaulting to active layer, region scoping condition) but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the file in-place, or any side effects.

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 brief and well-structured. The first line states the purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

While all parameters are explained, the description lacks information about return values or confirmation of success. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot infer what the tool returns after execution.

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%, so the description adds essential meaning: filename is an Aseprite file, layer_name uses empty string for active layer, frame_index is 1-based, and region only activates when width>0 and height>0. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 performs native color inversion, specifying the exact command (app.command.InvertColor). It distinguishes from sibling color adjustment tools like adjust_brightness_contrast or adjust_hsl by focusing on inversion.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, best practices, or scenarios where inversion is preferable over other color adjustments.

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