sprite_save_projectSerializes the full sprite project—palette, layers, all frames, and durations—to a .spriteproj.json in the output root for later reload with sprite_load_project.
Serialize the full project (palette, layers, all frames, durations) to a .spriteproj.json inside the output root. Load it later with sprite_load_project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| project | No | Project id. Omit to use the active project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of what is persisted and where the file lands, which is valuable, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, whether the tool returns the written path, or what happens if the project id is invalid.
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 sentences, no filler, with the artifact and its contents front-loaded and the follow-up action placed second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and two of three parameters are undocumented, so the description would need to say more about the save target and return value to be fully self-sufficient. It covers the core contract adequately for a simple save operation but leaves overwrite and result semantics open.
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 only 33% and the only documented parameter is 'project'. The description never explains 'dir' or 'name' – it only implies the file lands 'inside the output root', leaving an agent to guess whether dir is relative, absolute, or overrides the root, and how name relates to the fixed .spriteproj.json suffix.
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 gives a specific verb ('Serialize'), a specific resource ('the full project'), an explicit enumeration of what is captured (palette, layers, all frames, durations), and the exact artifact written (.spriteproj.json in the output root). This is precise enough to distinguish it from sibling tools such as sprite_export and sprite_load_project without opening any schema.
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?
It clearly signals the lifecycle pairing ('Load it later with sprite_load_project'), which tells an agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It stops short of explicitly excluding alternatives such as sprite_export or stating what to do when a save target already exists, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.