cavalry_set_parentParent a layer under another layer or group; use a null parentId to unparent it and move the layer to the top level.
Parent a layer under another layer (e.g. a group), or pass parentId null to un-parent it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layerId | Yes | Cavalry layer id, e.g. "basicShape#1". Use cavalry_list_layers to find ids. | |
| parentId | Yes | New parent layer id, or null to move to the top level. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added behavioral detail (null parentId moves the layer to the top level) largely duplicates the parentId schema description, and it says nothing about transform/world-position handling or cycle rejection.
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 that front-loads the primary action and appends the alternative mode without wasted words.
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 two-parameter, non-destructive mutation with full schema coverage and annotations but no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could still note error conditions (invalid id, circular parenting) or whether the call returns anything, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the null-to-top-level semantics and a pointer to cavalry_list_layers for ids. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 — parenting a layer under another layer — and even names the common target type (a group). It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with neighboring tools such as cavalry_connect or cavalry_duplicate_layer, which also alter scene hierarchy relationships.
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 covers both operational modes: parenting under an existing layer and passing null to un-parent. This gives clear context for when each invocation style applies, though it offers no exclusions or caveats (e.g. cycles, cross-scene parents) and never names an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.