aseprite_draw_across_frames

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does clarify the default scope (all frames when `frames` is omitted) and the semantics of the dx/dy offset. However, it says nothing about what drawing does to existing pixel content, required permissions, or error behavior for these mutating operations, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the defaults and the offset explanation. Nothing is wasted, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 4-param mutating drawing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers frames well but is silent on the `layer` and `document` targeting parameters and on return/error behavior. It is adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3, but the prose adds genuine meaning: it explains the {index, dx, dy} object form actually moves the artwork by (dx, dy) on that frame and that omitting `frames` means every frame. That offset semantics goes beyond the terse schema text.

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 (apply drawing operations) and resource (several frames) plus the distinguishing capability (per-frame offsets). It explicitly anchors to the sibling aseprite_draw by saying ops are 'the same operation objects as aseprite_draw', so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the intended use case ('how you animate motion efficiently') and the key branching condition: omit `frames` to draw on all frames, or pass indices/offset objects for per-frame placement. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. a single static draw), which aseprite_draw would cover, so it isn't fully explicit about alternatives.

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