Draw pixels onto a specific tilemap tile by providing the filename, layer, tile index, and pixel positions with colors. Use it to edit tiles directly in an Aseprite tileset.
Draw pixels onto a tilemap tileset tile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pixels | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| layer_name | Yes | ||
| tile_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a mutating draw operation but does not state whether existing pixels are overwritten, blended, clipped, or whether the change permanently modifies the tilemap asset.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action and target. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substantive guidance, so it is not maximally effective.
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 four-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, one short clause is inadequate. Missing are pixel coordinate semantics, color handling, tile indexing behavior, return values, and side effects, leaving too much to inference.
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 adds no meaning for filename, layer_name, tile_index, or pixels. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names and the raw schema, with no guidance about coordinate conventions, color formats, or tile indexing.
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 verb ('draw pixels') and a specific resource ('a tilemap tileset tile'), which clearly conveys what the tool operates on. This target distinguishes it from sibling drawing tools like draw_pixels or draw_pixels_at, even without explicit sibling naming.
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 usage context is provided. The description does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as set_tiles, draw_pixels_at, or draw_pixels, and gives no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.