aseprite_scale_sprite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation affects every frame and layer and that non-integer scaling blurs pixels, which is real behavioral context. It omits whether the change is destructive/undoable, how it interacts with the canvas, and whether it applies immediately or must be saved.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the pixel-art guidance following. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is advisory rather than operational.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope but leaves the meaning of the two required dimensions unspecified. An agent needs to know whether width/height are target sizes or scale factors before it can call this correctly.

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 only 33% (width and height are undocumented), and the description's 'integer factors like 2 or 4' framing is ambiguous against parameters named width/height. It never clarifies whether the values are absolute pixel dimensions or multipliers, leaving the two required parameters semantically unresolved.

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 (scale) and resource (the whole sprite) with explicit scope: all frames and layers. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling aseprite_resize_canvas, so the agent cannot tell whether to resize the canvas or scale the content from the text alone.

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?

Provides a genuine usage hint about integer factors for pixel-art upscaling and blur with non-integer scaling, which is useful. However, it never says when to use this instead of aseprite_resize_canvas or aseprite_transform, which are the obvious competing siblings.

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