edit_sprite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action and what is modified, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether changes are saved automatically. This leaves some behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and an important exclusion. It is front-loaded, with no wasted words, and every phrase adds meaning.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description is minimal but covers the essential purpose. It does not explain return values or error states, but agents can infer behavior from similar tools. More details could improve completeness.

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 covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds value by grouping parameters semantically and noting that xorigin/yorigin set the origin preset to Custom. This extra context goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing sprite'), and explicitly lists which properties can be edited (origin, collision kind, bounding box) while excluding frame data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sprite_info (read-only) and other edit tools.

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?

The description provides a clear scope: editing origin, collision kind, and bounding box. It also explicitly states what it does NOT do ('not its frame data'), helping agents decide when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it beyond the negative scope.

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