aseprite_add_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral facts an agent needs: indices are 0-based, and inserted frames start empty (so content must be drawn separately). It says nothing about reversibility, tag/timeline side effects, or whether durationMs applies to the new frames.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the indexing convention, then the placement control, then the follow-up workflow. No wasted words and no repetition of schema detail.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics and the natural follow-up step. It leaves minor gaps: the interaction of durationMs with newly inserted frames and whether any return value or frame count is reported.

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%, so mode, count, index, document, and durationMs are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only the 0-based indexing note and the mode-relative-to-index framing, which the enum description largely already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Insert empty frames") and the word "empty" cleanly distinguishes it from sibling aseprite_duplicate_frame, which would otherwise be the nearby ambiguous alternative. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It implies the workflow (insert empty frames, then draw into them via aseprite_draw's `frame` argument), which is genuinely useful sequencing guidance. However it never states when to choose this over aseprite_duplicate_frame or when not to use it, so usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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