import_strip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the applied transformations (shared cell size, palette lock, ground-line/axis alignment) and that it returns a preview rather than nothing. It does not say whether existing frames at those indices are overwritten, whether the import is undoable, or what happens if `master` is null and no reference sprite exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and core behavior in one long sentence, followed by the one parameter default that most changes behavior. The `count:` fragment is terse but unambiguous, and no sentence is wasted.

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 10-parameter mutation-ish tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete on the mechanics (scaling, palette, alignment, frame count, preview return). The remaining gap is operational: layer targeting, frame duration/start index, and overwrite/undo semantics.

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 coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does for roughly half: `cell` (defaults to master's height), `count` (defaults to splitting at transparent gaps), `align` (feet or centre), `master`, and `palette_lock` (locked to master's colours). Nothing is said about `path`, `image`, `layer` (default 'reference'), `duration_ms`, or `start_frame`, which materially affect the import but are invisible to the agent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: bringing a strip of poses into a sprite as frames, with the key transformation (pixelized, palette-locked, aligned to master) named inline. It is clearly distinct from siblings like pixelize or animate_rig, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the repeated reference to 'the master's scale/colours/ground line' tells the agent this belongs downstream of a master sprite, and 'drawn by hand or generated' hints at acceptable sources. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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