Ase Apply Shading

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it operates on 'opaque pixels' and 'base color', and that shading depends on 'which way the silhouette faces the light'. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the sprite in place, or what happens to transparent pixels. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves important mutation semantics unclear.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Directional cell shading') and then explains the mechanism. It's efficient and readable, though it could benefit from a second sentence clarifying parameter usage.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the role of frame, layer, or the exact format of light_direction. The output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify what the tool returns or how it affects the sprite. An agent would need to inspect the schema carefully and still might not know how to set light_direction correctly.

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. It mentions 'base color', 'shadow/highlight', and 'light direction' conceptually, but doesn't map these to the actual parameters (base, shadow, highlight, light_direction, frame, layer). The description doesn't explain the meaning of frame, layer, or how light_direction values are specified. With 7 parameters and zero schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 ('recolor') and resource ('opaque pixels of the base color'), and explains the directional shading concept. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ase_apply_outline or ase_adjust_hsl by focusing on directional cell shading, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies when to use it: when you want directional shading based on light direction and silhouette. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like ase_adjust_hsl or ase_replace_color for simpler color changes. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the use case, but explicit guidance is missing.

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