Apply a batch of operations atomically to an Aseprite document at a specific revision, ensuring changes only occur if the document matches the expected state.
在指定修订执行原子批次；操作格式见协议 v1。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operations | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| document_id | Yes | ||
| expected_context | No | ||
| expected_revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Atomic' usefully implies all-or-nothing semantics, but it says nothing about what happens on revision conflict, whether changes are persisted or reversible, whether a session must be opened first, or how request_id/idempotency behaves. The pointer to 'protocol v1' references a document the agent cannot see.
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?
One tight sentence with no filler, but the compression is achieved by delegating the substance to an unavailable external spec rather than by being information-dense. Short is not the same as efficient here.
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?
A 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs substantial description. Instead the description punts on the single hardest part — the operations payload format — to a 'protocol v1' the agent has no access to, so the definition is not callable without outside knowledge.
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% across 6 parameters, including an opaque objects array and three concurrency/idempotency fields (expected_revision, expected_context, request_id). The description only obliquely gestures at 'specified revision' and defers the rest to an external protocol, leaving the agent unable to construct operations correctly.
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 names a verb and effect ('executes an atomic batch at the specified revision'), which is more than a restatement of the name. But it never says what an 'operation' is or what resource is being modified, so the agent cannot distinguish it from save_sprite or undo/redo beyond guessing. Purpose is inferable but vague.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus undo, redo, or save_sprite, and no preconditions. The agent gets no routing signal at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.