ase_fill_areaFill a contiguous sprite area from a specific point with a chosen color, using RGBA tolerance to control how similar neighboring pixels must be.
Flood fill from a point (paint bucket), RGBA tolerance 0-255.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| color | Yes | ||
| frame | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| tolerance | No | ||
| 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 present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It adds a tolerance range ('0-255') and labels the tool as flood fill, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether it modifies the active layer/frame, whether the fill is destructive, or how it interacts with selections or layers.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently names the operationeur and its key parameter, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given 7 parameters, zero annotation coverage, and no schema descriptions, the tool needs more context to be called correctly. The description leaves color format, frame/layer behavior, sprite_path meaning, and expected output unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent.
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 tolerance (0-255) and implies x/y coordinates, but it does not describe the expected color format, sprite_path semantics, or frame/layer optional parameters. Seven parameters exist and only two are partially clarified.
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 ('flood fill') and resource ('from a point', 'paint bucket'), making the operation clear. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling drawing tools like ase_draw_pixels or ase_draw_rectangle, so an agent can differentiate without inspecting schemas.
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, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusionary context. The description only says what the tool does, not when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.