Ase Paste Clipboard

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 adds one useful detail — 'respecting alpha' — but fails to state whether the paste overwrites existing cel content, what happens if no cel exists at the target position, whether the clipboard is cleared after pasting, or any error conditions. For a mutation-style paste operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently worded and front-loads the primary action. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and no other documentation, it leans toward under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — it is compact but omits necessary detail, so it cannot be rewarded as well-structured completeness.

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 presence of an output schema covers return values, which helps. But the description leaves the parameters frame, layer, and sprite_path unexplained, omits the prerequisite clipboard-population step, and provides minimal behavioral context. For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and confidently.

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% across all 5 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. Only x and y are implied by the phrase 'at (x,y)'. The parameters frame, layer, and sprite_path are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description. The description fails to add meaning for the majority of the tool's inputs.

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 ('Paste'), a distinct source ('server clipboard'), and a precise target ('onto a cel at (x,y)'). This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like ase_copy_cel (copies a cel) and ase_copy_selection (copies a selection). The term 'server clipboard' signals a server-side buffer populated by another operation, which is a meaningful distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite that a server clipboard must first be populated (presumably by ase_copy_selection or ase_cut_selection). The description does not mention when-not-to-use, required preconditions, or alternative routes such as pasting a selection locally. An agent would have to infer the workflow context.

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