Erase a target layer or frame cel in an Aseprite sprite, setting its pixels to full transparency.
Erase the target layer/frame cel to full transparency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | No | Default: 1. | |
| layer | No | ||
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / filename / titleRemoved value: -"Filename"Input schema / properties / frame / descriptionAdded value: +"Default: 1."Input schema / properties / frame / titleRemoved value: -"Frame"Input schema / properties / layer / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / layer / defaultRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / layer / titleRemoved value: -"Layer"Input schema / properties / layer / typeAdded value: +"string"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"clear_layerArguments"v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating, destructive nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying the result is full transparency rather than deletion, distinguishing it from delete_cel. It does not state reversibility, permissions, or whether off-target cels are affected.
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?
A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome. No wasted words, though it is terse enough to leave gaps rather than being over-long.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description conveys the core effect but leaves parameter behavior underspecified and offers no guidance on siblings. It is minimally adequate but not complete.
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 33% and the layer and filename parameters have no descriptions. The phrase "target layer/frame cel" loosely gestures at the layer and frame params but adds no semantics for defaults, required filename, or what frame omission means.
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?
States a specific verb and resource plus the outcome: "Erase the target layer/frame cel to full transparency." An agent can tell this empties a cel rather than deleting it. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like fill_layer, remove_layer, or delete_cel.
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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite several overlapping siblings (fill_layer, delete_cel, remove_layer). The agent must infer the use case from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.