Apply ordered sprite edits to a staged copy, validating each operation before committing changes.
Validate and apply an ordered operation list to the staged sprite copy.
Args: workspace_id: Staging workspace from sprite_inspect mode=open operations_json: JSON array of objects, each with "op" and params
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace_id | Yes | ||
| operations_json | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool works on a staged copy (implying non-destructive to the original) and that it validates before applying. However, it omits failure modes, whether operations are applied atomically, reversibility, or any side effects.
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 two lines plus arg annotations. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds information. There is no fluff.
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 tool that applies an ordered operation list, the description leaves critical details out: what ops are supported, what params each op takes, whether the list is atomic, and what the result looks like. Without an output schema, the description should carry more load, but it doesn't.
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 does: workspace_id is explained as the staging workspace from sprite_inspect mode=open, and operations_json is described as a JSON array of objects each with 'op' and params. This gives actionable structure beyond the bare string type, though the set of valid op values is still unspecified.
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-resource pair: validate and apply an ordered operation list to the staged sprite copy. It also references the staging workflow from sprite_inspect mode=open, which differentiates it from sibling tools like sprite_export and sprite_preview.
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 first arg description, 'Staging workspace from sprite_inspect mode=open', gives a clear precondition and workflow context: the tool is meant to be used after sprite_inspect has opened a staging workspace. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the staged-copy context implies when it should be used versus other sprite tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.