pixel_import

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

The annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it preserves pixels exactly ('without changing any pixel') and saves the result as a revision.

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 front-loaded and reasonably sized, with the core import action stated first. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'editable recipe', but no wasted structure.

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 four-parameter import tool with a nested atlas object and no output schema, the description is adequate for understanding the main operation. It remains incomplete about the atlas structure, the name parameter, and what the saved revision result looks like.

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 50%. The description clarifies that either base64 data or a server-relative path may be passed and that the atlas is optional and unscaled, but it does not explain the nested atlas object or the name parameter, and the data/path details largely repeat the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: turning an existing PNG or sprite sheet into an editable recipe. It clearly states the import-and-convert outcome, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as pixel_render or pixel_compile.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Turn existing pixel art or a sprite sheet PNG into an editable recipe' and by the native-resolution 8-bit RGB/RGBA constraint. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over related tools or describe exclusions and prerequisites.

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