Manage Aseprite layer stacks by adding, updating, deleting, clearing, or merging entries, with controls for visibility, opacity, and order in animation and sprite workflows.
add{name,group?,parent?,below?,opacity?} | update{layer,rename?,visible?,opacity?} | delete{layer} | clear{layer,frame?} | merge_down{layer}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| layer | No | default top layer | |
| action | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: delete, clear, and merge_down are plainly destructive operations yet irreversibility, undo availability, and effect on existing layer content are unstated. Names imply mutation but no behavioral context is added.
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?
It is extremely short with no filler, which is good, but the signature-style notation is under-specified rather than concise — a reader must already know the semantics to parse it. Front-loading is fine but readability suffers.
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?
A five-action mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage gets only a one-line signature string. Nothing covers return values, error behavior for a missing layer, or how path scopes the operation, so an agent cannot reliably call it.
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 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by mapping per-action parameters (name/group?/parent?/below?/opacity? for add, rename?/visible?/opacity? for update, frame? for clear). However the required 'path' parameter is never explained, and the meaning of 'below' or 'frame' stays undefined.
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 notation lists specific verbs (add, update, delete, clear, merge_down) against the layer resource, so the domain is inferable. But it never plainly states that this tool manages layers within a sprite, and 'clear{layer,frame?}' or 'below?' are cryptic without prose. It distinguishes itself from draw/edit/frames only by the resource name.
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 on when to choose add vs update vs merge_down, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many siblings (draw, edit, frames). The action list implies the options exist but says nothing about selecting between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.