Reorder an animation timeline by moving a specific frame to a new index position, changing the sequence order.
Reorder the timeline by moving one frame to another position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Destination index. | |
| from | Yes | Frame to move. | |
| document | No | Document to act on: a short name inside the art folder ("hero"), a relative path, or an absolute .aseprite path. Omit to use the active document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses essentially nothing beyond the basic action: no mention of whether tags/cels follow the moved frame, how indices shift, whether the operation is undoable, or what permissions/document state are required for a mutation tool.
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 mechanism front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it errs on the side of under-specification rather than being wasteful.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: no return information, no document-state prerequisites, and no note on side effects such as index shifting or tag/cel behavior.
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%, with 'from', 'to', and 'document' each documented. The description adds no syntax, indexing convention, or accepted-range detail beyond what the schema already supplies, 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?
States a specific verb (reorder/move) and resource (timeline frame) with a clear mechanism: relocating one frame to another position. It is distinguishable from siblings like aseprite_remove_frame, aseprite_duplicate_frame, and aseprite_add_frames, though it never names them 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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., opening/selecting a document), and no alternatives among the many frame-manipulation siblings. The only cue is the implicit 'reorder the timeline' context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.