quantize_to_palette

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the algorithm (RGB distance) and that only opaque pixels are affected. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the palette itself is modified, if the operation is reversible, or if there are any destructive aspects beyond pixel changes.

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 two paragraphs: first the core action, then usage context and parameter list. Every sentence provides useful information; no fluff. It is front-loaded and well-organized.

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 absence of output schema and the tool's mutation nature, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and algorithm. It does not specify return values or confirmation, but for a tool that modifies a file, this is acceptable. It relates well to siblings like apply_palette_preset.

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 must explain parameters. It lists all four parameters with their roles and defaults (filename required, layer_name, start_frame, end_frame). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and types, though it does not elaborate on edge cases.

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: snapping each pixel to the nearest palette color. It specifies the resource (sprite's palette) and provides context on when to run (after apply_palette_preset or set_palette), distinguishing it from related tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (after apply_palette_preset or set_palette) and its purpose (making existing art conform to the palette). It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools among siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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