sprite_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing that the canvas starts transparent RGBA, that one layer named "Layer 1" exists by default, and that `layers` are ordered bottom to top. It omits what happens on collision when overwrite=false, whether directories are created, and any permission or failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the layer caveat attached directly after. Sizing is appropriate for the tool's simplicity, though the brevity contributes to the parameter gaps noted elsewhere.

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 7-parameter file-creating mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. An agent still cannot tell what overwrite does, what frames/duration_ms control, or what the tool returns on success versus file-exists failure.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only `layers` (ordering and default) is explained, plus the implied meaning of path/width/height from the first sentence; `frames`, `duration_ms`, and `overwrite` get no semantics at all.

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 with distinguishing detail: creating a new transparent RGBA .aseprite file. That clearly separates it from siblings like import_strip, sprite_info, or open. No sibling is named, so it misses the top band.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus import_strip or other creation paths, and no prerequisites stated (whether the parent directory must exist, what happens when the target file already exists). The only contextual note is the default layer naming, which is behavioral rather than usage guidance.

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