aseprite_replace_color

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the document-wide and all-frames scope of the replacement, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not address mutation/permissions/reversibility or what happens to indexed or palette-based colours.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by concise use cases. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The description adequately covers the core operation for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around behavioural caveats, return behaviour, and alternative-tool routing.

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 every parameter. The description only loosely reinforces the from/to pair and whole-document scope and does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 precise verb and resource: replacing every pixel of one colour with another across the whole document. It clearly separates the operation from general drawing or palette tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as set_palette or fill_regions.

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 offers example scenarios ("recolouring a character", "swapping a shade across all frames") but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like set_palette or fill_regions. Usage is implied through examples rather than stated conditions.

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