Edit a pixel grid to maintain a specified style contract by recoloring the entire grid or regenerating individual slots, enabling precise control over pixel art appearance.
Edit a pixel grid under a style contract (recolor or regenerate_slot)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| op | Yes | Op | |
| grid | Yes | Grid | |
| name | No | Name | |
| ramp | No | Ramp | |
| style | Yes | Style | |
| palette | No | Palette | |
| candidate_count | No | Candidate count |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action and operations but does not explain side effects, whether regeneration modifies the grid in place, how the style contract is applied, or how candidate_count affects the result.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and both supported modes without filler. It is concise and easy to parse, even if it sacrifices detail.
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 no output schema, seven parameters, and no annotations, the description leaves important context unexplained: grid format, role of palette/ramp, semantics of candidate_count, and expected result format. The existing sentence is too thin for safe invocation.
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 the baseline is 3 even though the parameter descriptions are tautological ('Grid', 'Style', 'Op'). The description adds the useful 'style contract' framing but does not clarify formats, relationships between grid, ramp, palette, and style.
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 names a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('pixel grid'), and explicitly lists the two supported operations ('recolor' or 'regenerate_slot'). It is more informative than a bare restatement, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like coeus_pixel_art_set or coeus_pixel_art_generate.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose edit versus alternative pixel-art tools or when recolor is appropriate versus regenerate_slot. The phrase 'under a style contract' hints at a constraint, but provides no decision-relevant context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.