aseprite_copy_cel

Does 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 what is copied but not what happens to pre-existing artwork at the destination cel, whether missing destination frames/layers are created, whether the source is left intact, or what the operation returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 operation and its scope, followed by the use cases. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and the parenthetical gloss on 'cel' earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema to compensate, and with no annotations the description should ideally cover overwrite/create semantics and permission or document-state prerequisites. It covers purpose and use cases adequately but leaves the behavioral outcome of the copy underspecified.

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% and the schema already documents all five parameters, including the default behaviors for fromLayer, toLayer, and document. The description adds only the conceptual definition of a cel, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource+scope ('copy one layer's artwork from one frame to another') and immediately defines the jargon 'cel = one layer on one frame'. This lets an agent distinguish it from timeline-level siblings such as aseprite_duplicate_frame or aseprite_move_frame without opening any 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?

Gives concrete motivating use cases ('holding poses', 'stamping a base drawing across a new animation'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it — notably it does not distinguish itself from aseprite_duplicate_frame, the nearest overlapping sibling.

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