Ase Set Slice Center

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It adds useful context (the rectangle is relative to the slice origin, it defines the stretchable region for 9-patch scaling), but it omits critical behavioral traits: whether the slice must already exist, what happens on invalid parameters (e.g., rectangle out of bounds), whether the operation is in-place or returns a new slice, and any permission or format requirements. For a mutating operation, this is a significant 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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and provides a brief definition of the concept. However, it lacks any structured breakdown of parameters or usage, which would be more helpful given the tool's complexity.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It doesn't specify the coordinate system fully (e.g., origin at top-left?), units, constraints (rectangle within slice bounds), or prerequisite state. While an output schema exists (not shown), the description doesn't hint at return values or errors. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional context.

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 each parameter. It only hints that x, y, width, height define the center rectangle, but doesn't clarify whether x,y is the top-left corner, center, or other origin. It also doesn't explain sprite_path or name (how they identify the slice). With 6 undocumented parameters, the description provides almost no semantic value.

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 ('Set a slice's 9-patch center rectangle') and the resource (the slice), and specifies the coordinate frame ('relative to the slice origin'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ase_set_slice_pivot (pivot point) and ase_create_slice (creation), so an agent can infer this is for modifying an existing slice's 9-patch region.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that ase_create_slice must be called first or that ase_set_slice_pivot is for a different purpose. The description gives no context on typical workflows or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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