Ase Propagate Cels

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 does disclose a key destructive behavior – 'replace=True overwrites existing cels' – and explains the layer-scope default (None = every image layer). However, it does not indicate what happens when replace=False (e.g., skip existing cels or add new ones), nor whether the operation is reversible or modifies the sprite in place.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the workflow hint and the overwrite caveat. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key behaviors.

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 description covers the main operation, layer scope, and replace behavior, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required. However, it leaves open what happens when replace=False (skip existing cels vs. create new ones) and whether the source frame is included in the target range. For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, this is an important gap.

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 for missing parameter information. It does explain the `layers` parameter (per layer list; None = every image layer) and the effect of `replace=True`. It does not explicitly describe `sprite_path`, `source_frame`, `start_frame`, or `end_frame`, though their meanings are inferable from the first sentence and parameter names. This is partial compensation rather than complete.

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 clearly states the action: 'Copy the cels of a source frame across a frame range' – a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ase_copy_cel or ase_link_cel, but the 'across a frame range' scope makes the distinction apparent. The lack of explicit sibling comparison keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'The animation workhorse: draw once, propagate, then tween positions' provides a clear workflow context, indicating this tool is used after drawing a keyframe and before tweening. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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