Ase Set Cel Position

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 action ('Place a cel') and one error condition, but it does not explicitly confirm this mutates the sprite, whether the operation is undoable, whether saving is required, or what happens to the cel's prior position. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful 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 description is one compact sentence with two clauses, both earning their place: the core action and a critical usage caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the main purpose and a key error case. But it leaves out the frame parameter semantics and does not clarify whether the cel is moved or copied, nor the coordinate system origin. Since an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, but these operational details would help an agent call it correctly.

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 adds meaning for x and y ('sprite coordinates') and clarifies the layer null default ('layer None = first image layer'). However, it does not explain the frame parameter (default 1) or the coordinate origin/bounds, leaving those aspects to the agent's inference.

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-resource pair: 'Place a cel at sprite coordinates (x, y)'. This unequivocally identifies the action and differentiates it from sibling tools like ase_create_cel (creates) and ase_set_cel_opacity (opacity). It also clarifies the target is an existing cel, which further pins down its role.

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 implies usage context: it requires an existing cel ('errors when the cel does not exist (create/draw one first)') and explains the layer default. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ase_tween_cel_positions or ase_oscillate_cel_positions, nor does it mention any prerequisites beyond cel existence.

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