Apply a consistent accent palette to PNG or GIF images, preserving transparency and frame timing, while limiting colors and leaving the original file unchanged.
Apply a deterministic accent palette to a PNG or GIF, preserve transparency and timing, and cap output colors without overwriting the source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | ||
| strength | No | ||
| max_colors | No | ||
| accent_color | Yes | ||
| input_filename | Yes | ||
| output_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 burden and discloses meaningful behavior: determinism, transparency/timing preservation, color capping, and non-destructive output. It does not mention output-file creation details or failure/error behavior, but the core side effects are addressed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs the key constraints without filler. Every clause earns its place and the most important distinctive behaviors lead.
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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers key constraints but leaves important operational details undefined: how 'deterministic' is achieved, what strength controls, and what the output file behavior is beyond not overwriting the source. It is usable but relies on the schema for defaults and ranges.
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%, so the description must compensate; it links 'PNG or GIF' to format, 'accent palette' to accent_color, and 'cap output colors' to max_colors. However, the meaning of strength (0–1) and the exact role of input/output filenames are not elaborated, leaving a partial semantic gap.
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?
States a specific operation ('apply a deterministic accent palette') on a defined resource ('PNG or GIF') with concrete constraints (preserve transparency/timing, cap colors, no source overwrite). This distinguishes it from sibling palette tools like set_palette or quantize_to_palette, which operate in-place and without these guarantees.
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?
The format and preservation caveats imply usage for recoloring PNG/GIF assets while keeping transparency and animation timing, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names are given. With dozens of sibling tools, the routing burden falls on the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.