Control Illustrator layer operations: list, add, rename, delete, show, hide, lock, unlock, reorder, set active, and move named items into a layer.
Illustrator: layer ops — list, add, rename, delete, show, hide, lock, unlock, moveToTop, moveToBottom, setActive; moveItems moves named items into the layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| newName | No | ||
| document | No | Document name; omit for the active document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a 'delete' layer operation, which destroys data, while annotations declare destructiveHint=false. That is a direct contradiction of the structured safety signal, so the agent cannot trust the safety profile for the delete action. The remaining actions add little behavioral context beyond the enum.
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 dense sentence front-loads the app and resource, then lists actions with no filler. The semicolon-separated special case for moveItems is efficient, though the raw action list is somewhat scannability-hostile compared to a per-action summary.
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 12-action multiplexer with 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and contradictory safety annotations, the description is too thin: it does not say which parameters each action needs or what each returns. An agent could call it, but risks malformed calls (e.g., rename without newName, delete without confirming intent).
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 20% (only 'document' is documented), so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It only clarifies one interaction — that 'moveItems' uses 'items' to move named items into 'layer' — and implicitly that 'newName' pairs with rename; layer/item format, validity, and per-action parameter requirements are unstated.
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?
Names the app (Illustrator) and the resource (layers), then enumerates the 12 supported operations, so an agent can tell this apart from item-level tools like ai_modifyItems and from the Photoshop siblings. The one-line 'action catalog' format is terse but specific; it stops short of a 5 because it never states the scope relationship to those siblings explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as ai_modifyItems for item properties versus layer membership here. The action names let an agent infer per-operation intent, but nothing tells it which tool to prefer or what preconditions apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.