Define a named rectangular slice in an Aseprite file to mark sprite regions that game engines can use for animations, tiles, or UI.
Create a named slice (a rectangular region usable by game engines).
Args: filename: Aseprite file to modify name: Slice name x: Left edge of the slice y: Top edge of the slice width: Slice width height: Slice height
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| filename | 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 provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., modifying the file in place), required file state, or error conditions. The phrase 'usable by game engines' gives context but not 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?
Description is short, one-sentence purpose plus an Args list. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the schema but aids readability. No wasted words.
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 6-required-param tool with no annotations or output schema, the description explains the purpose and parameter meanings but omits return value, success/error handling, and file state changes. Could be more complete.
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 adds brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'filename: Aseprite file to modify', 'name: Slice name'). These add meaning beyond the schema's basic titles like 'X', 'Y'.
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?
Clearly states 'Create a named slice (a rectangular region usable by game engines).' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like delete_slice, list_slices.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or when-not-to-use mentioned. The description only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.