Add a new sprite to your mBlock project by providing a name and file path, with optional confirmation to prevent accidental additions.
Add a new sprite target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Sprite2 | |
| path | No | ||
| confirm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly a mutation that may not be idempotent and is not destructive in the usual sense. The description merely says 'add,' which adds no additional behavioral detail, such as side effects on existing sprites, required project state, or the effect of the confirm parameter.
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?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is extremely under-specified, lacking any elaboration on the tool's operation. While it is front-loaded with the core action, it doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful information beyond the tool name.
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?
With 3 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no descriptions for parameters, the tool is far from complete. The description does not explain the 'path' parameter, the purpose of 'confirm,' or how adding a sprite differs from renaming one, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters (name, path, confirm). It provides no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, leaving the agent to guess what 'path' refers to or what 'confirm' controls. This is a serious gap given the zero coverage.
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 clear action ('Add') and a specific object ('sprite target'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_targets and rename_target. It is not a tautology and conveys the primary purpose effectively, though it lacks context on what a sprite target 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., a project must be open) or contrast with rename_target, list_targets, or other related tools. The usage context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.