Ase Duplicate Frame

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that insert_after=0 appends at the end, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether duplication copies all cels/layers/frame duration, whether the operation is additive, or how invalid indices are handled. For a mutating tool this is thin.

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 one compact sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 simple and an output schema exists, but without annotations and with zero parameter documentation, the agent only gets a bare action and one parameter hint. It lacks enough context to know what source_frame refers to or what 'duplicate a frame' entails in Aseprite terms.

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 insert_after (0=end), but says nothing about sprite_path or source_frame, leaving both required parameters to inference.

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 action and resource: 'Duplicate a frame'. It also gives a concrete behavioral detail about insert_after=0 appending at the end. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ase_add_frame or ase_copy_cel, but the verb 'duplicate' is unambiguous about copying an existing frame.

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 such as ase_add_frame, ase_copy_cel, or ase_duplicate_layer. The insert_after note is a parameter behavior, not selection guidance. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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