ase_apply_outlineDraws a colored outline around the non-transparent pixels of a sprite frame, with adjustable thickness and layer targeting for precise pixel-art editing.
Draw an outline around non-transparent pixels of a cel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | Yes | ||
| frame | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| thickness | No | ||
| sprite_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear this is a mutating drawing operation, but it does not disclose whether existing pixels are overwritten, how frame/layer resolution works, or any destructive potential.
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 no filler. Every word contributes to stating the core operation.
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 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, this is too thin to fully guide a correct invocation. Color format, layer/frame resolution, and thickness semantics are left to inference, even though the output schema may cover 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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds one useful semantic detail—the outline targets non-transparent pixels—but it does not explain the color format, thickness units, or how layer/frame defaults behave.
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 uses a specific verb ('Draw') and a specific resource ('outline around non-transparent pixels of a cel'), so the core action is immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related sibling tools such as ase_draw_contour or ase_draw_line.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over ase_draw_contour or other drawing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.