Deletes a named layer from the active sprite. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental loss.
Deletes a layer from the active sprite. Requires confirm: true for safety.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Layer name to delete | |
| confirm | Yes | Explicit confirmation to delete (must be true) |
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 discloses the confirm safety gate but not whether deletion is irreversible, whether it can be undone, or what happens to the layer's pixel content and its position in the stack.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, with the safety constraint immediately following. Nothing is wasted.
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 destructive, unannotated tool with no output schema should disclose irreversibility and undo behavior; those are missing. The confirm gate and full schema coverage keep it minimally viable.
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% and both parameters are already explained in the schema. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond it, so the baseline 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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Deletes a layer from the active sprite.' The scoping to 'active sprite' plus the layer resource clearly separates it from delete_frame, rename_layer, and the other layer siblings, though no sibling is named 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?
No when-to-use guidance versus alternatives (e.g., set_layer_visibility=false to hide instead of deleting, or undo for reversal). The only conditional mentioned is the confirm parameter, which is a requirement rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.