aseprite_create

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

Annotations provide little beyond non-destructive and non-read-only hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the Indexed palette behavior, transparent entry 0 requirement, and that existing documents stay open. It stops short of explaining that the new document is not saved to disk or whether it becomes the active document, but the stated traits meaningfully exceed the structured metadata.

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?

Four short sentences each carry unique information: main action, default behavior, optional palette constraint, and side-effect note. The description is front-loaded with purpose and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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 create operation with five parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: creation semantics, color mode nuance, palette requirements, and non-destructive behavior. A minor gap is not explaining how the new document will be referenced by later tools like aseprite_edit or aseprite_inspect, but the core invocation details are covered.

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 only 20% (just the palette parameter has a description). The description compensates by clarifying colorMode semantics, specifying that index 0 must be transparent, and explaining how palette colors are added as drawn. Width, height, and name remain self-evident from the schema's types and bounds, so the additional explanation is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create and open a transparent pixel-art document'. It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like aseprite_edit, aseprite_export, and aseprite_save_copy, and adds precision with color mode and transparency details.

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 implicitly conveys that this tool is for creating new documents, and the note that existing documents remain open clarifies it can be used repeatedly without closing others. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as aseprite_edit for modifying existing documents or aseprite_save_copy for saving, leaving that distinction to inference.

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