Ase Clear Cel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it uses the key distinction that this deletes the cel instead of painting over it. It states the destructive effect clearly, though it does not mention reversibility or what happens when the target cel does not exist.

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?

One sentence plus a short, necessary parenthetical and one parameter clarification. Every phrase adds information, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 small destructive operation with an output schema, this is largely complete: it explains the operation's purpose, the key null-layer behavior, and the distinction from transparent painting. It could add a note that frame 1 is the first frame or that layer strings are names, but an agent can proceed reasonably.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies 'layer None = first image layer'. It leaves frame indexing, layer name/identifier format, and sprite_path semantics to be inferred from their names and defaults.

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 first clause names a specific verb and resource ('Delete the cel on a layer/frame') and the parenthetical immediately distinguishes it from the superficially similar 'painting it transparent'. This makes it easy to tell apart from cel-drawing and layer-deletion siblings.

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 contrast with painting transparent states when the tool is appropriate: when the cel should be truly empty rather than just visually transparent. It does not spell out when not to use it versus all cel/layer siblings, so it misses the explicit exclusion bar for a 5.

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