Run a predefined asset recipe to transform an input image into a finished pixel art asset. Specify steps, material, direction, and format for deterministic visual output.
Execute a deterministic composed asset recipe through the shared visual services.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| steps | Yes | ||
| format | No | png | |
| asset_id | Yes | ||
| material | No | earth | |
| direction | No | south_east | |
| output_prefix | Yes | ||
| input_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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that execution is 'deterministic' and routed 'through the shared visual services', but it does not state whether files are written, whether the source asset is modified, what the return behavior is, or what side effects the recipe steps may have.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance, so it cannot receive a 5.
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 an 8-parameter execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling list containing similar tools, one vague sentence is far from complete. The agent lacks enough context to know prerequisites, output behavior, or how this differs from `run_asset_recipe`.
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 any of the 8 parameters. It does not explain `steps`, `material`, `direction`, `seed`, or how `output_prefix` is used, leaving the agent to guess from raw enum names.
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 ('Execute') and a specific resource ('composed asset recipe'), so an agent can tell this is about running an asset recipe. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling `run_asset_recipe`, and 'shared visual services' is vague.
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 `run_asset_recipe` or `compose_asset_preset`. The word 'deterministic' implies a narrow use case, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.