ase_resize_canvasResize canvas dimensions without scaling existing content, using an anchor point to control placement.
Resize canvas without scaling content (anchor: center|top_left|top_right|bottom_left|bottom_right).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | ||
| anchor | No | center | |
| height | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (canvas resize, content not scaled, anchor placement), but it omits potential side effects such as clipping/discarding content outside the new canvas when shrinking.
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 filler. It packs the operation, the key differentiator, and valid anchor values into a compact, scannable form.
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?
Adequate for a simple operation, but there are clear gaps: no mention of what happens to out-of-bounds content when shrinking, no units for width/height, and no detail on sprite_path. The output schema covers return values, so the main omissions are behavioral and parameter-level.
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 only elaborates the anchor parameter's allowed values; width, height, and sprite_path semantics are left entirely to inference, with no units or path format mentioned.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Resize canvas') and immediately clarifies the key differentiator: content is not scaled. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ase_scale_sprite.
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 'without scaling content' implies when this tool is appropriate versus a scaling tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. It leaves the agent to infer the choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.