Ase Draw On Tile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: coordinates are tile-local, 0 is a reserved empty tile, tile_index values start at 1, and passing the current tile count appends a new tile. It omits state requirements and error behavior, but covers the key mutation semantics.

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?

Three focused sentences front-load the action and immediately provide coordinate and format details, followed by the tile_index edge case. There is no filler or repetition.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description provides the core semantics needed to call it correctly: coordinate frame, pixel format, reserved index, and append behavior. It leaves unspecified edge cases such as out-of-range tile_index or whether the target layer must already be a tilemap layer, but an output schema exists for return values and the main operational hazards are covered.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It precisely documents the pixel element shape ({x, y, color: '#rrggbb'}) and the special tile_index semantics, while sprite_path and layer_name are clear from the resource phrase. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Paint') and names the exact resource (pixels in a tile of a tilemap layer's tileset), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like ase_draw_pixels that operate on sprite canvas coordinates. It also states the coordinate system and tile-index conventions, making its function unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when modifying the pixels that make up a tile in a tilemap layer's tileset, rather than drawing on the sprite canvas or setting tilemap grid positions. It does not name alternatives explicitly or state when not to use it, but the tile-local coordinate and tile_index hints are enough to identify the appropriate scenario.

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