aseprite_draw_pixels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that this is a mutation on an existing sprite, but says nothing about overwrite semantics for the target pixels, what happens if the named layer/frame is absent, whether existing cel content is preserved, or whether the file is saved afterward. The clearCel parameter hints at destructive behavior but the description never clarifies it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, the two input modes, and the target scope, with no filler or redundancy.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is not enough. It omits the mutually exclusive nature of pixels vs matrix, the role of offsetX/offsetY, and the effect of clearing the cel, all of which an agent needs to invoke 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 100%, so every parameter including the nested matrix fields is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description merely echoes 'layer and frame' and adds no extra semantics such as how offsets interact with the sprite bounds or what a 'transparent' color value does.

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 (draw) plus the two resource forms (pixels or 2D character matrix) and the exact target (a layer and frame of an existing sprite). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like aseprite_create_sprite or aseprite_export_spritesheet, which operate at a different level.

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 phrase 'existing sprite' implies a prerequisite but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer the matrix form over the pixels form (a genuine either/or decision in the schema), and no reference to alternatives such as composing art via aseprite_run_lua or an animation tool.

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