duplicate_sprite

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description usefully adds that the copy spans all layers/frames/tags/slices. However, it says nothing about where the copy lands, how it is named, or what handle the agent gets back for the new sprite.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the batch constraint second. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives (e.g. the new sprite's id/name) so the copy can be referenced; that is missing. For a 3-param duplication tool it is adequate but leaves this practical gap.

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 coverage is 67%, and the 'sprite' param description already states 'Batch mode needs a file path,' so the description's 'file is required in batch mode' largely restates schema content rather than adding new meaning. The undocumented 'file' parameter still lacks format details.

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 ('makes a copy') and resource ('a whole sprite') and enumerates scope (all layers, frames, tags, slices). The phrase 'whole sprite' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling duplicate_layer, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 only guidance is the conditional 'In batch mode file is required,' which is parameter usage rather than tool-selection guidance. It never says when to prefer duplicate_sprite over new_sprite, duplicate_layer, or open_sprite, nor 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.