Adjust hue, saturation, and lightness in Aseprite sprites directly using native HSL controls, with optional region, layer, and frame targeting.
Apply Aseprite native hue, saturation, and lightness adjustment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| hue | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| lightness | No | ||
| layer_name | No | ||
| saturation | 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, the description carries the full burden but only restates the operation. It does not disclose whether the adjustment is destructive, whether it applies to a region/layer/frame, what 'native' implies about behavior, or any side effects. This is a mutation tool with zero behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified. It conveys only the basic operation and omits all parameter and usage context, so the brevity comes 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?
For a tool with 10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is clearly inadequate. An agent cannot know the spatial scope, layer/frame targeting, or the meaning of 'native' in Aseprite context, leaving most invocation-critical information missing.
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 does not compensate. It mentions hue, saturation, and lightness but gives no meaning for filename, x, y, width, height, layer_name, frame_index, nor any guidance on ranges or interaction. An agent has to infer the role of 7 undocumented 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?
States a concrete operation ('Apply Aseprite native hue, saturation, and lightness adjustment') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'adjust_hsl' tool, relying on the word 'native' to imply the difference.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'adjust_hsl' or other color-adjustment tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are given, so an agent cannot decide between this and its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.