Adjust brightness and contrast of Aseprite images or layers to correct exposure or enhance visibility.
Apply Aseprite native brightness and contrast adjustment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| contrast | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| brightness | No | ||
| layer_name | No | ||
| frame_index | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Apply' implies modification, but the description doesn't state whether it's destructive, whether it operates on the whole sprite or a region, or whether it affects only the current frame/layer. Critical side effects are left undisclosed.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core operation. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary explanatory content, but for pure conciseness it's effective.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is critically incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's scope (layer/frame/region), the parameter semantics, expected return value, or side effects. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.
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 description offers no parameter details. It doesn't explain that brightness/contrast ranges are -100 to 100, or the meaning of x/y/width/height, layer_name, or frame_index. The agent must guess from parameter names and defaults, which is inadequate for 9 parameters.
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 ('Apply') and resource ('Aseprite native brightness and contrast adjustment'). It's specific enough to indicate the core operation, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling adjustment tools like 'adjust_hsl_native' or 'apply_color_grade'.
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., adjust_hsl_native, apply_color_grade). There are no prerequisites, no mention of selection vs. full-layer scope, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.