Draw a polygon on a specific layer and frame in Aseprite, using defined points and optional color and fill settings.
Draw a polygon on a specific layer/frame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| layer_name | Yes | ||
| frame_index | Yes | ||
| points | Yes | ||
| color | No | #000000 | |
| fill | No | ||
| create_if_missing | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the polygon is auto-closed, how points are interpreted, or side effects like overwriting. This is insufficient.
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 sentence with no redundancy, but it is too brief and omits essential guidance. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, the description fails to provide adequate context about return values, error handling, or parameter constraints.
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 tool description adds no meaning to parameters like point format (required integer keys?), color format, fill behavior, or create_if_missing. The agent must guess from parameter names alone.
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?
Description 'Draw a polygon on a specific layer/frame' clearly states verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling drawing tools like draw_line, draw_rectangle, draw_circle, etc.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., draw_rectangle) or when not to use it. There is no context for filling, color, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.