Server has 15 tools with complete input schemas and descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun convention (get_pixels, set_pixels, draw, etc.). Descriptions are present and actionable (avg ~120 chars), explaining WHAT each tool does and WHEN to use it. However, several tools lack parameter-level descriptions (e.g., 'rect' in get_pixels is described as 'Rectangle [x, y, width, height]' but lacks guidance on coordinate system or bounds). Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict return structure. Error handling is minimal; no recovery guidance or categorization. Security is a concern: run_lua is gated by env var but no permission checks on other destructive tools (delete, clear, save). Composition is good, tools are single-purpose and chainable (e.g., get_pixels → set_pixels). Parameter constraints are mostly present (enums for tool names, color modes) but some are loose (e.g., 'points' in draw accepts arbitrary arrays with no validation hint).

• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., info returns {width: int, height: int, colorMode: string, frameCount: int, layers: [{name: string, visible: bool}], paletteSize: int}. This enables LLMs to plan downstream operations.
• Enhance parameter descriptions with explicit constraints. E.g., 'rect: [x, y, width, height] where x,y >= 0 and width,height > 0. Clipping is applied if rect exceeds sprite bounds.' Add similar detail to points, colors, and layer names.
• Add error recovery guidance. E.g., 'If layer not found, call layer with action=new to create it first.' Return structured error responses with error codes and actionable next steps.
• Implement confirmation for destructive operations. Add a dry_run parameter to clear, delete, and save. Or require a second confirmation call before executing irreversible changes.
• Improve run_lua documentation. Warn that arbitrary Lua code can corrupt or destroy the sprite. Suggest safer alternatives (draw, set_pixels, layer, frame) for common tasks. Consider requiring explicit opt-in via a confirmation parameter.