Generates a style contract that specifies palette, base size, materials, outline, and light direction, enabling consistent sprite and map visuals across assets.
Create a deterministic visual style contract for sprites and maps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| seed | No | ||
| palette | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| base_size | Yes | ||
| materials | No | ||
| detail_level | No | medium | |
| outline_color | No | #12243A | |
| light_direction | No | south_east |
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. The word 'deterministic' adds some useful context, implying seed-based reproducibility, but the description does not disclose whether this creates a file, returns a structure, modifies existing assets, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a creation 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 sentence with no filler or redundancy, and the key idea is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse in structure, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
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?
Given the tool has nine parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not explain what a style bible is, what the tool returns or writes, how determinism is controlled, or what the required parameters mean. An agent would be guessing.
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 does not compensate at all. None of the nine parameters (filename, id, base_size, palette, seed, materials, detail_level, outline_color, light_direction) are explained or even hinted at beyond the vague 'visual style' phrase. The agent has no help mapping parameters to intent.
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 a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('deterministic visual style contract for sprites and maps'). This helps distinguish it from siblings like generate_asset_preset or harmonize_asset_palette. However, 'style contract' is somewhat abstract and could be clearer about what the created artifact actually is.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_asset_preset, create_asset_recipe, or harmonize_asset_palette. The description states only what it does, not the conditions that make it the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.