aseprite_import_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two modes and that non-new-sprite imports are drawn onto a layer of the active document at (x, y), but it omits mutation side effects such as layer creation behavior, frame targeting, reversibility, or what happens to the active document.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences efficiently explain the two operational modes with relevant examples. The parenthetical examples are useful, though slightly verbose, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main branching behavior but leaves gaps around return values, error handling, and side effects like document/frame/layer interactions. The rich schema reduces the burden, but the description could do more to prepare an agent for safe invocation.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description names `asNewSprite` and references (x, y), but it does not add syntax, formatting, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: importing an external image into the pipeline, with a clear branch for `asNewSprite` versus drawing onto the active document. It does not name a sibling tool to contrast with, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from generic open/create operations.

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 provides concrete use cases for both modes: tracing over a reference or manually slicing a sprite sheet with `asNewSprite`, and stamping a palette reference, logo, or texture otherwise. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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