invert_colors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Apply' without disclosing whether the operation modifies the sprite in place, affects a layer or cel, is reversible, or has side effects. This is effectively a label rather than a behavioral explanation.

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 brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations. Its brevity approaches truncation rather than effective conciseness, and it lacks any structural breakdown of 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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this one-sentence description is far too incomplete. The agent cannot determine what will be modified, which region is affected, or what the expected result will be.

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?

There are 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description mentions none of them. It does not explain how filename, layer_name, frame_index, x, y, width, or height relate to the inversion operation, so the agent must guess their meaning.

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 operation, 'Apply Aseprite native color inversion,' which clearly identifies the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from nearby color tools like replace_color and adjust_hsl, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 adjust_hsl or replace_color. The description does not mention any preconditions, target scope, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.