Fill a rectangular area with a two-color Bayer-dithered gradient, creating a smooth transition between two colors in Aseprite.
Fill a rectangle with a two-color Bayer-dithered gradient.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| color_end | Yes | ||
| horizontal | No | ||
| layer_name | Yes | ||
| color_start | Yes | ||
| frame_index | Yes | ||
| create_if_missing | 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 bears the full burden. It indicates a mutating fill operation, but does not disclose whether existing pixels are overwritten, how coordinates are interpreted, what happens when the layer/frame is missing, or any default behavior such as create_if_missing. Side effects remain implicit.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and context details that would make it more helpful.
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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not enough. The agent is left to infer usage, side effects, and distinguishing behavior from parameter names alone, which is especially risky given the large sibling list of gradient, drawing, and dither tools.
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 names no parameter. 'Rectangle' loosely hints at x/y/width/height and 'two-color' hints at color_start/color_end, but there is no explanation of coordinate meaning, color format, or the optional horizontal and create_if_missing parameters. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 specific verb ('Fill'), a specific target ('rectangle'), and a distinct method ('two-color Bayer-dithered gradient'). This clearly differentiates it from non-dithered gradient tools like apply_gradient_rect and generic pattern tools like apply_dither_pattern, even without explicitly naming a sibling.
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 given for when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention apply_gradient_rect, apply_dither_pattern, draw_rectangle, or any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.