aseprite_quantize_palette

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core effect (pixels are repainted/snapped to the new palette), but never states that this mutates the document destructively, whether it is reversible/undoable, or how remap=false changes behaviour. Adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, action first and rationale second, with no filler. Every clause 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?

All three parameters are covered by the schema and no output schema exists, so little more is required. However, as an unannotated document-mutating tool it should mention that it rewrites pixel data (and that palette changes are applied), which it only implies.

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%, so the schema already documents count, remap and document, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the algorithm hint (k-means) behind 'count' and nothing on remap or document resolution.

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 and effect on the resource ('reduce the artwork to N colours and snap every pixel'), and naming k-means plus the colour-count target distinguishes it from palette siblings like aseprite_set_palette or aseprite_replace_color. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 when-to-use context ('tame a messy palette', 'hit a retro constraint like 16 colours'), which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. set_palette for an exact palette) or stating when not to use it.

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