Bulk-set pixel data on a specific layer and frame of a sprite by providing base64-encoded image data, enabling direct programmatic editing of pixel art assets.
Write raw image bytes from base64 to a layer/frame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| frame | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| data_b64 | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosurebf it only says 'write,' implying mutation, but does not explain whether existing data is overwritten, how frame/layer defaults behave, image size constraints, or coordinate mapping. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and target. It earns its place, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter 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?
For a 4-parameter bulk mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, this description is under-specified. It omits path semantics, overwrite behavior, dimension handling, and return value expectations, leaving important operational details to guesswork.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only glosses over data_b64, layer, and frame. The required 'path' parameter is not explained at all, and there is no detail on expected base64 format, image dimensions, or how frame/layer select the target.
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 states a clear action (write raw image bytes from base64) and a target (layer/frame), which is distinguishable from sibling tools like set_pixel or get_png_data. It could be more explicit that this operates on a sprite identified by path, but the core purpose is understandable.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of set_pixel, create_sprite, or other siblings. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.