aseprite_set_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose upsert semantics ('Create or update'), which is meaningful for a mutation tool, and its downstream effect on export. It does not say what happens when a tag of the same name already exists (overwrite vs. error) or whether the operation is reversible.

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, front-loaded with the action and range, followed by useful domain context. No wasted phrasing, though the second sentence is explanatory rather than strictly 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect but omits expected preconditions and conflict behavior. The rich schema compensates on parameters, so this is adequate rather than complete.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's 'walk frames 0-5' example loosely illustrates the from/to range, but adds no syntax or constraint detail 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?

States a specific verb pair (create/update) and resource (named animation tag) plus its scope (frame range), with a concrete example. It clearly separates itself from siblings like aseprite_remove_tag and aseprite_set_loop, and the second sentence explains what a tag actually is.

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?

The description implies usage by explaining that tags become exported animations and are playable in the timeline, which helps an agent understand intent. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as aseprite_set_loop or aseprite_remove_tag, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an open document).

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