set_slice_center

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool modifies a slice's center rectangle but does not disclose effects like file saving, error handling, or required permissions. The behavioral implications of setting invalid coordinates or non-existent slices are absent, resulting in a score of 2.

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 with two sentences and a bullet list of arguments. The first sentence states the core function. The docstring is efficient, though it slightly repeats the 'relative to the slice' phrase. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a 4.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and all parameters adequately for a mutation tool. However, it omits context about prerequisite slice existence, invalid input handling, and return value. It is fairly complete but has minor gaps, scoring 4.

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%, yet the description includes a detailed docstring explaining each parameter (filename, name, x, y, width, height) with additional context like 'relative to the slice'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions. Score 5.

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 sets a slice's 9-patch center rectangle, specifying it is relative to the slice origin. The purpose is explained (stretchable region for game engines), but it does not explicitly distinguish from similar tools like set_slice_pivot. The verb 'Set' and resource are clear, earning a 4.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where it should not be used. The mention of 'game engines' gives a weak context, but without exclusions or alternatives, it scores 2.

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