Apply Operations

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: automatic session creation, the confirmed=true requirement for destructive ops, and the filtering of echo results on success. It also explains the verbose flag for complete echoes and dry_run plans, which is valuable for predicting tool behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by conditional behavior and output semantics. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers session handling, confirmation, and result filtering well, but the central ops parameter is only vaguely defined as a batch of operations with examples. With no output schema and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the lack of op structure details and atomic semantics makes it incomplete for reliably invoking the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining session_id, confirmed, verbose, and dry_run behavior, and by giving examples of ops such as create_sprite/open_sprite. However, the structure of the ops array is not specified, and the atomic parameter is left unexplained, leaving gaps in full parameter understanding.

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 states a specific action: executing a batch of Aseprite operations, and labels itself as the unique mutation entry point. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect and run_lua by emphasizing that it is the only path for changes.

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 clear contextual guidance: it is the only mutation entry, session creation is automatic for create_sprite/open_sprite, and destructive operations require confirmed=true. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a fully explicit when/when-not comparison.

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