Sb3 Add Sprite

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 discloses that the tool is 'proxied' (suggesting a pass-through) but gives no information about side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or how the operation behaves (e.g., whether it overwrites, appends, or validates). For a mutating tool, 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 brief (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It front-loads the core action, which is good, but omits essential usage and behavioral details. The parenthetical '(proxied)' is cryptic and does not contribute to clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description might be adequate in isolation, but it lacks any guidance on usage context, parameter constraints, or typical invocation patterns. With many sibling tools, the absence of differentiation makes it incomplete for reliable agent selection.

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 clarifies that 'props' is a JSON object string, but provides no detail on what properties the JSON may contain or how 'name' is used. The schema itself only lists types and defaults; the description adds minimal value beyond that, and the lack of examples or constraints leaves the agent guessing.

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 the primary action 'Add a sprite' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from related operations like sb3_remove_sprite and sb3_set_sprite. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'add' tools (e.g., sb3_add_costume, sb3_add_sound), but the resource (sprite) is clear enough. The mention of 'props' adds a hint of configurability.

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. It does not mention when not to use it, or any conditions that would make another tool more appropriate. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to apply it, which is insufficient for a tool with many siblings.

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