aseprite_merge_layer_down

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Merge' implies a destructive mutation that removes the source layer, but the description never states that the merged layer is consumed/deleted, nor any prerequisite that a layer must exist beneath it. The core direction is clear, but the destructive consequence is left implicit.

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 with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is somewhat imprecise (a merge-down is not exclusively an end-of-piece operation), which slightly dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits key context an agent needs: that the operation is destructive (source layer removed), and how it differs from aseprite_flatten. It is adequate but leaves notable 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 coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters (name, document) are fully documented in the schema, including the default-layer behavior. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (merge), resource (a layer), and direction (into the one beneath it), which distinguishes it from siblings like aseprite_flatten, aseprite_remove_layer, and aseprite_add_layer.

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 second sentence gives loose usage context ('at the end of a piece, or to flatten shading into a base layer'), but it never names or distinguishes the close alternative aseprite_flatten (which flattens all layers) nor states when-not to use this tool. Context is implied rather than precise.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.