Draw pixel map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: '.' and space leave pixels unchanged, mapping a key to '#00000000' erases, one undo step, stamps drawing order, and file override precedence. It does not cover error cases or interaction with active layer/frame beyond defaults, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 detailed but efficient, front-loading the core concept and then systematically covering format, examples, stamps, and file usage. Every sentence contributes to understanding how to use the tool. It is slightly long but justified by the complexity of the tool.

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 high complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers essential usage patterns, special characters, and file support. It does not explain coordinate origin or error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly in typical scenarios.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the interplay of palette, rows, stamps, and file, plus the special meaning of '.' and space (not in schema). It also clarifies that inline arguments override file values, adding value beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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: drawing many exact pixels using a token-efficient palette-and-rows format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like aseprite_set_pixels (likely for individual pixels) and aseprite_draw (for shapes) by emphasizing 'most token-efficient way to draw many exact pixels.'

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 usage for bulk pixel drawing and mentions patterns like stamps and file-based generation, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for few pixels or freeform drawing). It provides context but no exclusions or direct routing to siblings.

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