aseprite_edit

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: the atomic rollback on error, protection of locked layers, and the exact matching or appending behavior for indexed colors. These are concrete behavioral guarantees not hinted at by the annotations alone.

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 long, but the tool is complex with many operations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Edit a live RGB or Indexed document in one undoable transaction') and each subsequent sentence adds relevant detail without redundancy. Some structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve scanability, but it remains appropriately sized.

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?

The description covers operations and usage constraints well, but it does not mention the return value (e.g., a new revision) or any expected result format. An agent would need to know what the edit call returns to confirm success, especially since expectedRevision is a required parameter for subsequent calls.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 1-based frame indexing, how indexed colors are handled (exact match or append, never approximate), and the single-transaction nature. It does not exhaustively cover every parameter but significantly supplements the 50% schema description coverage.

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 edits a live RGB or Indexed document in one undoable transaction, and enumerates the supported operations (painting, selection, transforms, layer/frame/tag management, tilemaps). This distinguishes it from sibling read-only or export tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aseprite_inspect or aseprite_export. It provides internal constraints (e.g., locked layers protected) but no comparative usage guidance for tool selection.

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