Sb3 Add Costume

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 says 'Add a costume from a file' but doesn't disclose whether this modifies the current project in memory, requires saving, overwrites existing costumes, or what happens with invalid file paths. The '(proxied)' term is unexplained. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it omits essential context. The '(proxied)' parenthetical is cryptic and doesn't earn its place without explanation. It's under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine what 'target' refers to, what file formats are supported, or what the output schema represents. The sibling list shows many related tools, but this description doesn't help an agent navigate them.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'from a file' which hints at the 'path' parameter, but doesn't explain 'target', 'name', or 'dataFormat'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a costume from a file.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sb3_add_sound and sb3_remove_costume. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the target/scope (e.g., which target the costume is added to) or differentiate from project_add_costume, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_add_costume or sb3_add_sound. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., a project must be open, target must exist) or context for when adding a costume is appropriate. The '(proxied)' note hints at some indirection but doesn't explain it.

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