aseprite_create_sprite

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 the key behavioral fact that the created document becomes active and that every other tool operates on it, plus the 0-based top-left coordinate convention. However, it says nothing about what happens to a previously open document, error/overwrite behavior when the name exists, or side effects of palette indexing.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the critical 'active document' fact, then coordinate convention, then sizing heuristics. No filler; each sentence carries actionable information.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, activation semantics, coordinate frame, and sizing/frame guidance well. It leaves gaps around error/overwrite behavior and indexed-color mode interactions that an agent might need, but the schema covers per-parameter defaults.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: practical sizing guidance for width/height, the rationale for pre-setting `frames` (animation planning), and the coordinate system the canvas uses. It doesn't explain indexed-mode palette/paletteSize interplay, so not a 5.

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+resource ('Create a new pixel-art document') plus a crucial side effect ('make it active'), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like aseprite_open and aseprite_import_image by being the document-origin tool. An agent can tell what it 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?

Gives real when-to-use guidance: choose a small canvas, with concrete size heuristics (16-32 px characters/items, 64-128 px scenes), and set `frames` up front when planning animation. It doesn't explicitly name the alternatives (open vs. import) it should be preferred over, which keeps it from a 5.

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