aseprite_erase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the effect (makes the region transparent) and scope (layer, across frames), but omits whether the action is destructive, reversible, how it interacts with other layers, or what result is returned.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the operation it names.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the coordinate system, defaults beyond what the schema partially covers, or expected return behavior, leaving gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It implies that x, y, width, and height define a rectangular region and mentions layer and frames, but it adds no coordinate-system, units, or detailed parameter meaning beyond that.

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?

The description names a specific verb (erase) and resource (rectangular region on a layer, across frames), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as aseprite_remove_frame or aseprite_fill_regions, but the resource scope is distinct enough for an agent to understand.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies the operation is for erasing pixels in a rectangle across frames, but an agent gets no help choosing this over sibling tools like aseprite_fill_regions or aseprite_replace_color.

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