aseprite_save_copy

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by clarifying that it does not replace the current document, does not mark it saved, and never overwrites existing output. This provides useful behavioral context not found in the annotations, though it does not detail what happens if the output filename already exists (e.g., whether it errors or creates a unique name).

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the core action, then adds key behavioral details in a clear second sentence. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 provides a good overall picture of the operation, but it leaves out some context that could be important for an agent, such as how the output file is named (presumably via the 'name' parameter) and what happens if a file with that name already exists in the export folder. Given the absence of an output schema, these details would help complete the picture, but the description is still reasonably complete for a save operation.

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 no information about the parameters themselves. The schema provides descriptions for documentId and expectedRevision, but the 'name' parameter is only defined by a pattern and the description does not explain its role (likely the output file name). Since the description adds no parameter semantics and schema coverage is only 67%, the contribution is minimal.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Save'), the resource (an editable .aseprite copy), and the scope (all layers/frames/tags into a new export folder). It also distinguishes this operation from modifying the current document, making the purpose unambiguous even without comparing to siblings.

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 suggests usage when a non-destructive copy is needed ('Does not replace the current document or mark it saved', 'Existing output is never overwritten'), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like aseprite_export or aseprite_edit. The guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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