Duplicate a sprite into a new Aseprite file, optionally overwriting an existing output. Copy your pixel art or animation to another .aseprite file for backups or variations.
Copy a sprite to a new Aseprite file.
Args: filename: Name of the Aseprite file to copy output_filename: Name of the output .aseprite file overwrite: Whether to overwrite if output exists
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| output_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'copy a sprite to a new file' but does not mention whether the original is modified, what happens if the output file exists without overwrite, or any side effects. The overwrite parameter is listed but its effect is not explained.
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 brief and to the point, with a clear list of arguments. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary words, though it could benefit from a short sentence about each parameter.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error cases, prerequisites (e.g., file existence), or any constraints. For a file copy operation, more detail is needed for an AI agent to use it correctly.
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 add meaning. It lists parameter names but provides no additional details beyond the schema (e.g., no format hints for filenames, no explanation of overwrite behavior). The defaults are not clarified.
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 tool copies a sprite to a new Aseprite file. The verb 'copy' and resource 'sprite' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like copy_cel or copy_frame by operating on the entire sprite and creating a new file. However, no explicit differentiation is provided.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_cel or copy_layers_between_sprites. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.