Adds a new named layer to the active sprite, optionally inside a parent group, for structured pixel art editing.
Creates a new image layer in the active sprite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New layer name | |
| parentGroup | No | Optional parent group folder name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the operation creates a layer in the active sprite but does not disclose side effects such as selection changes, undo behavior, required permissions, or what happens on failure.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's action and target scope.
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?
The tool is a simple two-parameter mutation, but it has no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the core action and the active-sprite scope, but omits side effects, return details, and when to choose it over sibling creation tools, leaving clear gaps.
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 the input schema already documents 'name' and 'parentGroup' as an optional parent group folder. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.
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 description pairs the verb 'Creates' with the resource 'image layer' and scopes it to the active sprite, so the tool's function is immediately clear. It does not, however, contrast itself with sibling tools such as create_group or create_frame, leaving sibling differentiation mostly to the tool 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?
The description gives no when-to-use conditions, prerequisites beyond 'active sprite', or alternatives such as create_group for folders. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.