Creates a named rectangular slice in an Aseprite file using position and dimensions, defining a reusable area for game assets or UI components.
Create a named rectangular slice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the slice is created on a specific sprite/canvas, whether it overwrites an existing slice with the same name, what coordinate system is used, or what the return value is. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the operation name.
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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful detail, though conciseness itself is not the problem.
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 six required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the slice concept, coordinate semantics, target selection, or error conditions. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without external knowledge.
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 six undocumented parameters. It does not explain that x/y likely define the top-left corner, that width/height must be positive, that name is the slice identifier, or that filename refers to the target sprite. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's basic types and constraints.
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 and resource ('Create a named rectangular slice'), which is clear enough to identify the core operation. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like set_slice_center, set_slice_pivot, list_slices, or delete_slice, and 'slice' is a domain-specific concept that is not elaborated. It is minimally clear but lacks differentiation.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing sprite or canvas), no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.