Convert animation frames to pixel art while preserving animation delays. Set output size and color options to generate a pixel-art animation from existing files.
Convert all image frames to pixel art and preserve animation delays.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | ||
| dither | No | none | |
| height | Yes | ||
| max_colors | No | ||
| resize_mode | No | box | |
| input_filename | Yes | ||
| alpha_threshold | No | ||
| output_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that all frames are converted and delays are preserved, but it does not mention output file overwrite behavior, whether the input is modified, failure conditions, or result format. These are meaningful gaps for a conversion tool.
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. Every word contributes: the operation, the scope, the target style, and the key preservation constraint.
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, this one-clause description is incomplete. It gives a high-level purpose but omits parameter guidance, expected outputs, overwrite semantics, and how to adjust conversion quality or resize behavior.
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 mentions none of the 8 parameters or their semantics. It does not explain width, height, dither, max_colors, resize_mode, or alpha_threshold, so an agent must infer their meaning from parameter names and enums alone.
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 uses a specific verb ('convert'), a specific resource ('all image frames'), and the target style ('pixel art') while adding the distinctive preservation of animation delays. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling convert_image_to_pixel_art, which presumably targets a single image.
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?
The phrase 'all image frames' and 'preserve animation delays' implies this is for animated inputs, which gives some usage context. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over convert_image_to_pixel_art or other pixel-art/sprite tools, and it provides no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.