Ase Add Frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool mutates the sprite by appending a frame and that it returns the new frame count. However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether the new frame is blank or duplicated, how duration_ms applies, and what side effects occur.

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 zero filler. 'Append a frame; returns the new frame count' is efficient and structurally clear, even though more content could have been added without hurting 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and ambiguous sibling names, the description is too thin. It does not explain how the appended frame is created, why sprite_path is required, or how duration_ms affects the new frame. The output schema may define the return shape, but the description still lacks enough context for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 does not compensate. It never mentions sprite_path or duration_ms, their roles, or acceptable values. The schema property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the raw field names imply.

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 clearly states the operation: append a frame and return the new frame count. It is specific enough to distinguish from delete/duplicate/duration tools, but it does not differentiate from similarly named siblings like ase_add_frames or ase_add_frames_blank, so it falls short of a 5.

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. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to choose ase_add_frame over ase_add_frames or ase_add_frames_blank, nor whether it appends a blank frame or a copy of the current frame.

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