outline_native

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Apply' implies an in-place pixel mutation, but the description does not state that the selected layer is modified, whether the operation is destructive, or how the result relates to existing pixels. Color, placement, and matrix effects are also left undisclosed.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. However, the word 'selected' is vague and could have been replaced with explicit parameter references, making it concise but slightly underspecified.

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 six-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too skeletal. It names the operation and target but omits the meaning of the effect parameters, the role of filename, any side effects, and what a successful call returns. An agent would need to open the schema and still lack key context.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain color, place, matrix, filename, layer_name, or frame_index. The phrase 'selected layer and frame' loosely maps to layer_name and frame_index, but it never explains their roles, defaults, or value formats. With six undocumented parameters, this is insufficient compensation.

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 clear verb ('Apply') and object ('Aseprite native outline') and narrows the target to a layer and frame, so an agent can identify the operation. The word 'native' hints at the distinction from the sibling apply_pixel_outline, though the difference is not explicit. Some ambiguity remains around what 'selected' means and which file is affected, since filename is required but not mentioned.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus apply_pixel_outline or other outline-related tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended use cases. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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