ase_delete_frameRemove a specific frame from an Aseprite sprite using its 1-based index. Provide the sprite file path and frame number to delete it.
Delete a 1-based frame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | Yes | ||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete' without explaining that this is destructive and possibly irreversible, how it affects cels, animation tags, or the ordering of remaining frames, or what happens if the frame index is out of range.
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, direct sentence with no fluff, and it front-loads the key action and indexing detail. It is concise without being a tautology, though it could be slightly more explicit about parameter roles.
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 simple two-parameter deletion tool, the 1-based indexing hint is the most critical detail and is present. Still, with no annotations and no behavioral context, an agent lacks information about destructive consequences and error conditions, so the description is minimally adequate but not 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 description clarifies that the 'frame' parameter is 1-based, which is meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it leaves 'sprite_path' semantics unaddressed, so it only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.
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 clear action ('Delete') and resource ('frame'), and adds the important indexing detail '1-based'. It is distinct from sibling tools like ase_add_frame or ase_duplicate_frame, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ase_duplicate_frame, ase_add_frame, or ase_clear_cel. The description gives no context about deleting animation frames, preserving cels, or any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.