Saved palettes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses persistence ('on disk', 'reused across sprites and sessions') and gives a concrete example for the ramp action, showing the generated keys format. It doesn't detail overwrite semantics or error behavior, but the provided example and action descriptions give adequate behavioral insight for most cases.

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 well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, then lists actions with concise explanations and includes an example for the most complex action. It's longer than minimal but every sentence carries useful information, and the layout aids scanning. Slight redundancy in the action list could be trimmed, but it remains efficient.

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 (7 parameters, multiple actions, nested objects) and the lack of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers all actions, explains the integration points, and gives a concrete example. It doesn't cover edge cases like overwriting or deletion behavior, but for a storage/retrieval tool with this level of detail, it's sufficient for an agent to call 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 coverage is 86%, and the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'name' is optional for list/ramp, explains the 'from_image' behavior (collects colors from visible frame or layer/rect), and provides a worked example for ramp with base and keys. This goes beyond the schema's terse property descriptions and directly helps the agent construct valid calls.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: storing named palettes for reuse across sprites/sessions, and explicitly enumerates the actions (save, list, delete, from_image, ramp) with brief explanations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing how paletteName is used in other tools (aseprite_pixel_map, aseprite_read_pixels, aseprite_animation), making its role clear.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to persist and reuse palettes) and details each action's purpose. It mentions the integration with sibling tools but doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. However, the action list provides clear context for when each sub-action is appropriate, so it's close to fully guiding usage.

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