Duplicate a cel from a source frame to a target frame in Aseprite, optionally replacing existing content, to reuse artwork across animation frames.
Copy a cel from one frame to another.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| replace | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| layer_name | Yes | ||
| source_frame | Yes | ||
| target_frame | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral details like whether the copy is destructive, if it includes all cel properties, or the effect of the 'replace' parameter. The tool is a mutation but this is not clarified.
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?
Extremely concise (one sentence) but omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficient.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a cel is, prerequisites, return behavior, or the role of 'filename'.
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?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter, including the critical 'replace' boolean or the ambiguous 'filename' parameter. An agent cannot infer correct usage from the description alone.
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 (copy) and the resource (cel) and the context (from one frame to another). It distinguishes from siblings like 'copy_frame' or 'clear_cel' by specifying the cel-level operation.
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 such as 'copy_frame' or 'create_cel'. The description lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.