Creates a new unsaved RGB document in Aseprite with the specified width and height, enabling immediate canvas editing before saving.
创建未保存的 RGB 文档。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the created document is unsaved (not persisted), and omits everything else: whether a session must exist first, whether the document appears in list_documents, reversibility/undo behavior, and what the call returns.
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 short front-loaded sentence, so there is no padding, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy — the sentence is too thin to be useful for a 4-parameter creation tool.
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 no annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and 3 required parameters including an opaque session_id, the description leaves an agent unable to call this correctly without guessing. It is far from complete for the tool's complexity.
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 none of the four parameters (width, height, session_id, request_id) are explained in the description. It does not even clarify that width/height are in pixels or what session_id identifies; the description adds nothing beyond the bare schema titles.
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 verb and resource ('创建...RGB 文档' — create an RGB document), and 'unsaved' hints at how it differs from save_sprite. However, it never uses the word 'sprite' in a way that ties to the tool name, and it says nothing about dimensions, session scoping, or how the result relates to list_documents.
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 guidance on when to call this versus list_documents, save_sprite, or get_document_info. The 'unsaved' qualifier weakly implies a later save is needed, but no exclusion, precondition, or alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.