copy_sprite

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals a non-obvious safety behavior: 'refusing to overwrite by default.' However, it does not disclose what happens when overwrite is false and the output exists, whether the destination document must already be open, or the operation's failure modes.

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, compact sentence with no filler. The core action and the key caveat about overwriting are both front-loaded with maximum efficiency.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward copy operation, but it omits several details an agent may need: whether the destination document is created or must already exist, how filename and output_filename should be specified, and what error or return value occurs when overwrite is refused. Without annotations or an output schema, these gaps are noticeable.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It does relate 'to another Aseprite document' to output_filename and 'refusing to overwrite by default' to the overwrite parameter, but it leaves the source filename parameter implicit and does not clarify expected formats or paths.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('copy') and resource ('a sprite'), with a precise destination ('another Aseprite document'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_cel, copy_frame, and copy_region, which operate on smaller elements rather than the whole sprite.

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 description provides clear context: it is for copying an entire sprite across documents, which differentiates it from same-document copy operations among the sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.