Draw an ellipse-bounded circle on an Aseprite image by specifying center coordinates and radius. Optionally set fill and color for the circle.
Draw an ellipse-bounded circle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fill | No | ||
| color | No | #000000 | |
| radius | Yes | ||
| center_x | Yes | ||
| center_y | Yes | ||
| 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 present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Draw', which implies a write operation, but says nothing about file handling, overwriting behavior, coordinate semantics, or expected sprite/canvas state.
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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than economically complete. The phrase 'ellipse-bounded' adds confusion without clarifying the tool's behavior or parameters.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many closely related siblings, this one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain the role of 'filename', coordinate system, fill/color defaults, or how this differs from the '_at' drawing variants.
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 parameters or their meanings. The schema's property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond those names and does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 verb and resource ('Draw' a 'circle') and the schema's center/radius parameters clarify what it draws. However, the phrase 'ellipse-bounded circle' is confusing and does not differentiate the tool from siblings like draw_ellipse_at or draw_circle_at.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_circle_at, draw_ellipse_at, draw_rectangle, or fill_area. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.