aseprite_set_palette

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 this REPLACES the palette (destructive) and that in indexed mode it constrains the usable colours — useful context. But it omits permissions, reversibility/undo, and what happens to existing indexed pixels (the schema's remap hints at this but the description doesn't clarify the default behavior).

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 action and no filler. The second sentence is contextual rather than redundant, though it could be tightened.

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 an annotation-free mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the indexed-mode consequence but leaves open the fate of existing pixels and reversibility, which an agent would need to call this safely.

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 colors, document, size, and remap fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'explicit colour list,' which merely restates the colors parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource: 'Replace the document palette with an explicit colour list.' An agent can distinguish this from load_palette/quantize_palette by the word 'explicit,' though the description never names those siblings to make the distinction unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied via the indexed-mode sentence ('this is the actual set of colours the artwork can use') and the 'tight, coherent palette' framing. It offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never routes to alternative palette tools like load_palette or quantize_palette.

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