Ase Set Tiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does meaningful work: it specifies 0-based coordinates, defines tile_index 0 as clearing the cell, and warns that the cel is (re)built at map size. This gives the agent crucial side-effect information beyond the mere action name.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the action, then give the exact tile-list syntax, then note the cel rebuild side effect. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers tile format, clearing semantics, and cel rebuild behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It does not spell out prerequisites such as an existing tilemap layer or the meaning/range of frame, but these are inferable from the tool name and schema defaults.

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%, but the description compensates for the most complex parameter by specifying the required fields and meanings inside each tiles entry. sprite_path and layer_name are self-explanatory from their names; only frame is left implicit, and its schema default of 1 somewhat mitigates the gap.

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?

Description opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Place tiles on a tilemap layer by grid position,' clearly separating it from sibling tile inspection and drawing tools. It then pins down the exact data shape, so an agent knows this is a batch tile-placement operation, not a single draw or query.

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 context is clear: use it when writing tile indices to a tilemap layer at grid coordinates. However, it never states exclusions or explicitly names alternatives (e.g., ase_draw_on_tile), so the agent must infer the boundary between this and closely related tile tools.

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