Start a new pixel art project by creating a blank sprite document in Aseprite with custom width, height, and color mode.
Creates a new blank sprite document in Aseprite with specified dimensions and color mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | Canvas width in pixels | |
| height | No | Canvas height in pixels | |
| colorMode | No | Color mode | rgb |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says a new document is created but never states whether the existing sprite is replaced or a new tab opened, whether anything is persisted to disk, or what the return value is — significant gaps for a creation tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though the trailing 'with specified dimensions and color mode' is largely redundant with the schema.
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 tool is simple (3 optional params, all defaulted, no output schema), and the description covers the essential action. However, with zero annotations and no output schema, it omits whether the created sprite becomes the active document and what happens to any currently open sprite.
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%: width, height (with defaults, exclusiveMinimum 0, max 4096) and the colorMode enum are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'dimensions and color mode' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Creates a new blank sprite document in Aseprite' with the configurable dimensions and color mode named. It is clearly distinguishable from open_sprite and create_frame, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_sprite (open existing) or resize_canvas. No prerequisites or exclusions are given; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.