Ase Link Cel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (creating a linked cel that shares an image), but does not explain side effects: whether the target cel is overwritten, if both cels must exist, what happens to the original image, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal transparency, not misleading but clearly insufficient.

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 sentence with no filler words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool that is conceptually simple, and every word contributes to the definition. This is a model of concise structure.

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 tool with four required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is far too thin. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, the effect on existing cels, the direction of linking, or any prerequisites or return behavior. Even with an output schema present, the description leaves critical operational details undocumented.

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 by explaining the four required parameters. It does not; it never mentions sprite_path, layer_name, source_frame, or target_frame. The phrase 'another frame's cel' vaguely alludes to frame parameters, but the mapping among parameters and their roles is left entirely to inference from names. This adds almost no value beyond the schema itself.

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 ('Make a cel linked') and specifies the resource ('with another frame's cel'), which distinguishes it from siblings like ase_copy_cel by the concept of linking rather than copying. However, it doesn't explicitly state the direction of the link (source to target) or the meaning of 'shared image' in Aseprite, which would make it even more precise among the many cel operations.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ase_copy_cel or ase_create_cel. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing cels), typical scenarios, or exclusions. This is a bare definition with no usage context, so it falls at 'no guidance' rather than implied usage.

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