Deletes a specified 1-indexed animation frame from an Aseprite document after explicit confirm:true. Use to remove unwanted frames during animation editing.
Deletes an animation frame. Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Explicit confirmation to delete (must be true) | |
| frameNumber | Yes | Frame number to delete (1-indexed) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the hard requirement of confirm:true, which tells the agent the call will be rejected otherwise, but it says nothing about irreversibility, whether the deletion can be undone/redone, or what happens to adjacent frame numbering.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the blocking precondition. Every word earns its place with no padding.
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?
For a destructive, unannotated mutation with no output schema, the definition is thin: it omits reversibility/undo behavior, failure modes, and any post-delete state description. The confirm gate is covered, but the rest of the behavioral picture an agent needs is missing.
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 100%: the schema already documents frameNumber as 1-indexed with exclusiveMinimum 0 and confirm as a required boolean. The description merely restates the confirm requirement and adds no new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Deletes an animation frame'), which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like delete_layer or duplicate_frame. It stops short of differentiating itself from any alternative deletion path or stating scope, so it is clear but not maximally informative.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any precondition or caution beyond the confirm flag. Nothing tells the agent when deletion is appropriate or what to do first (e.g., verify the frame number).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.