Ase Draw Pixels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the default mode replaces everything including alpha, while merge=True skips fully transparent pixels. However, it does not mention undoability, coordinate bounds, or effects on the rest of the cel.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core behavior in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by explaining merge behavior. The confusing 'hex via r/g/b/a ints' clause slightly hurts clarity.

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 output schema lowers the burden for return-value documentation, and the essential pixel-drawing behavior is present. But for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is thin: pixel format details, defaults, and the hex ambiguity are not fully resolved.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the pixel array shape [{x,y,r,g,b,a}] and the merge parameter's meaning. But it leaves color ranges, frame/layer semantics, and the ambiguous 'hex via r/g/b/a ints' phrase unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Draw individual pixels ... on a cel.' This clearly identifies the action. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling ase_draw_pixels_hex, and the phrase 'or hex via r/g/b/a ints' is confusing.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ase_draw_pixels_hex, ase_draw_line, or ase_fill_area. The merge explanation is parameter behavior, not tool-selection guidance.

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