Draw a filled or outlined pixel-art rectangle on the active Aseprite layer by specifying position, dimensions, and color. Use the fill option to switch between solid and outline shapes.
Draw a filled or outlined pixel-art rectangle on the active Aseprite layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| fill | No | ||
| color | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the filled/outlined modes and the active-layer target, but does not disclose side effects such as replacing pixels, coordinate clamping, color interpretation, or whether the operation modifies the active cel only.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is under-specified for a 7-parameter drawing tool. It reads as a useful opening summary, not as a complete description.
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 absence of annotations, an output schema, and parameter descriptions, this one-liner leaves substantial gaps: coordinate semantics, bounds/overflow behavior, color format, filename targeting, and active-layer interaction. An agent would have to infer or experiment to call it correctly.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the 7 parameters, but it only implicitly covers 'fill' via 'filled or outlined'. x, y, width, height, color, and filename receive no added meaning beyond their schema names/types.
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 action and object ('Draw a filled or outlined pixel-art rectangle') and a location ('on the active Aseprite layer'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling draw_rectangle_at or fill_area, so it stops short of full 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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like draw_rectangle_at, draw_line, or fill_area, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is 'when you want a rectangle,' which is not enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.