Define the 9-patch center rectangle for a slice, specifying x, y, width, and height to control how the asset scales.
Set a slice 9-patch center rectangle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| name | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Set', implying mutation, but gives no details about whether it overwrites existing settings, requires the slice to already exist, or has side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the operation's impact.
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 short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It provides no structure or additional context, making it insufficient for a tool with 6 required parameters. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a complex set of 6 parameters with no descriptions, the tool description is completely inadequate. An agent would have no way to correctly call this tool without external knowledge about 9-patch slicing conventions and parameter semantics.
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?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. While names like x, y, width, height suggest coordinates and dimensions, there is no mention of units, coordinate system (relative to slice or sprite), or how they define the center rectangle. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.
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 'Set a slice 9-patch center rectangle.' clearly identifies the verb (set) and the resource (slice 9-patch center rectangle), distinguishing it from siblings like set_slice_pivot or create_slice. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it operates on an existing slice within a specific file, leaving some ambiguity about the resource scope.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_slice_pivot or create_slice. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., slice must exist), nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage context is only implied by the phrase '9-patch center rectangle'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.