Ase Adjust Hsl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add useful behavioral detail: it affects only opaque pixels, layer None means all layers, and frame=0 processes every frame. However, it is silent on whether the sprite is mutated in place, whether the operation is undoable, or whether the change is destructive.

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 dense and front-loaded: ranges, scope, and special-value semantics are all packed into two sentences with no filler. Every clause adds operational value.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no schema descriptions, it covers the critical invocation details: shift ranges, opaque-pixel restriction, and the special meaning of layer None and frame=0. The only missing context is persistence/undo behavior, which is minor because an output schema exists for return values.

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 compensates well by documenting the valid ranges for hue, saturation, and lightness and clarifying the special semantics of layer=None and frame=0. Only sprite_path is left to inference from its name.

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 verb ('Shift') and resource (hue/saturation/lightness of all opaque pixels), and gives concrete use cases such as palette swaps and night scenes. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling color tools like ase_replace_color by the global HSL 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?

It provides example applications (palette swaps, night scenes, shadow layers), which imply usage context, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. An agent must infer the selection logic from the operation name and scope.

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