Ase Create Cel

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the idempotent no-op behavior and the default layer selection, which are useful. However, it does not explain what happens if the specified layer or frame does not exist, whether the cel is placed at x/y, or other side effects beyond creation.

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 no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes a high-value parameter default. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's primary purpose and an important edge case.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to explain several key parameters (x, y, frame, sprite_path) that an agent must understand to invoke the tool correctly. For a tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is a notable completeness gap, even though the core idea is simple.

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 description adds meaning only for the layer parameter ('layer None = first image layer'), but the input schema has 5 parameters (x, y, frame, layer, sprite_path) with 0% schema description coverage. The meaning of x, y, frame, and sprite_path is entirely omitted, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('empty canvas-sized cel'), and the target ('on a layer/frame'), with an explicit no-op condition. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ase_clear_cel or ase_copy_cel by specifying creation of an empty canvas-sized cel.

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 a use case (ensuring an empty canvas-sized cel exists on a layer/frame) and gives a helpful default for layer, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternative tools such as ase_add_frame, ase_add_layer, or ase_clear_cel. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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