Adjust a layer’s stacking order in the visual z-index stack to bring it to the front, send it to the back, or move it forward or backward.
Reorders a layer in the visual z-index stack ("bring_to_front", "send_to_back", "bring_forward", "send_backward").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| layerId | Yes | Layer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies mutation of the z-index stack but says nothing about permissions, whether reordering is reversible, error behavior for an invalid layerId, or the resulting state returned to the caller.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the parenthetical enum restatement is redundant with the input schema and slightly inflates the length.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits failure modes, permission requirements, and confirmation of the post-reorder state. Adequate but with visible 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 50% (layerId is only labeled 'Layer ID'), so the description should compensate. It does list the four action values, but this duplicates the schema enum without explaining what each one does (e.g., bring_forward = one step up), and layerId's format is never clarified.
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 (reorders) and resource (layer in the visual z-index stack), and the parenthetical enumerates the four supported ordering actions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like layer_align or layer_transform, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.
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 guidance on when to use this versus related tools (layer_align, layer_transform, studio_batch_actions), no prerequisites such as the layer needing to exist, and no note on whether it operates on one layer only. The agent must infer everything about invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.