Apply a built-in convolution matrix to a specific layer and frame in an Aseprite file, enabling image effects like blur or sharpen.
Apply a built-in Aseprite convolution matrix to a layer and frame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| matrix | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the safety/behavior disclosure. It does not state that applying a convolution matrix overwrites layer pixels, whether it respects selections/bounds, or whether the operation is reversible. The sentence implies pixel modification but gives no side-effect or state-change detail.
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 sentence, no filler, and the operation is front-loaded. Efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance captured by other dimensions.
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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is materially incomplete: required filename is absent, region parameters are unexplained, and available matrix names are not referenced. An agent has little basis for a correct first call.
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 only echoes the param names 'layer' and 'frame' plus the 'built-in' nature of matrix. Required filename and the x/y/width/height region controls are left undefined, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 the exact verb ('apply'), resource ('built-in Aseprite convolution matrix') and target ('layer and frame'), which is sufficient to differentiate it from sibling list_convolution_matrices and apply_dither_pattern. It is compact but unambiguous.
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 on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of the sibling list_convolution_matrices for discovering available matrix values. Prerequisites are absent; the only context is the operation itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.