Ase Copy Cel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does explain that the copy is independent (unlike linked cels), which is a key behavioral aspect. However, it does not disclose what happens to the target cel if one already exists (the 'replace' parameter), nor any side effects or prerequisites. The mention of 'layer None = first image layer' adds useful default behavior, but more could be said about the operation's effects on the target frame.

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 two sentences, with the core action and differentiator front-loaded. Every word adds value: it states the operation, clarifies independence, names the alternative, and provides the layer default. No wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (copy cel image between frames), and an output schema is present, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description omits critical details like the behavior of the 'replace' parameter and does not explain what happens if the source cel is missing. For a mutation operation, the lack of clarity on overwriting behavior is a notable gap. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate by explaining all parameters. It only explains the 'layer' parameter's default behavior ('layer None = first image layer'), leaving source_frame, target_frame, sprite_path, and replace undefined. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, 'replace' is ambiguous (replaces existing cel? replaces image data?) and no guidance is given. This is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 ('copy') and resource ('a cel's image from one frame to another') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling ase_link_cel by clarifying it creates an independent clone. This is a clear, action-oriented purpose that an agent can act on without ambiguity.

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 explicitly contrasts with ase_link_cel, indicating this tool is for when an independent clone is needed rather than a shared image. It implies the usage scenario but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other cel-related tools like ase_create_cel or ase_duplicate_frame, leaving some inference to the agent. Still, the key alternative is named and differentiated.

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