Apply a gradient fill to an existing text or shape layer by layerId, specifying colors, angle, or preset for graphic design edits.
Applies a gradient fill to an existing text or shape layer by layerId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| angle | No | Angle in degrees | |
| colors | No | ||
| preset | No | ||
| layerId | Yes | Target 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 exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a mutation and a target constraint, but says nothing about whether an existing fill is overwritten, what happens if both 'colors' and 'preset' are supplied, or whether an undo step is created.
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 with the action and target front-loaded. Zero 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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. The preset-vs-colors relationship and the effect on existing layer fill are the key missing pieces.
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 only 50% ('colors' and 'preset' are undocumented in the schema), and the description adds no meaning for 'colors', 'preset', or their interaction. Only 'layerId' is echoed back, which the schema already explains.
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 ('applies') and resource ('gradient fill') plus the target constraint ('an existing text or shape layer'). This implicitly distinguishes it from canvas_set_gradient, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the scope difference.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description implies the context (an existing layer must already exist) but gives no help choosing between this and canvas_set_gradient or filter_apply_preset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.