Add a bitmap, vector, sound, or camera layer to a Pencil2D project by specifying the .pclx file path and layer name.
Add a new layer (bitmap, vector, sound, or camera) to a Pencil2D project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new layer. | |
| visible | No | Initial layer visibility (default true). | |
| layer_type | No | Type of layer to create (default 'bitmap'). | |
| project_path | Yes | Path to the .pclx file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never says that this mutates and writes the .pclx file on disk, whether changes are persisted immediately, where the new layer is inserted in the stack, or what happens on duplicate names or a missing project file.
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, and the enumerated types are the most useful part. It is efficiently written, though its brevity is partly a symptom of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.
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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description should cover preconditions, persistence, and at least a hint of the return value (e.g. the created layer's index). None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it confidently without trial and error.
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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the layer_type enum and the visibility default. The description restates the enum values but adds no extra semantics such as naming constraints or whether layer order is controllable.
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 and resource (add a layer) plus the four valid layer types, so the agent knows exactly what is created. It does not name or contrast with any sibling such as pencil2d_add_frame or pencil2d_remove_layer, leaving that inference to the agent.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus pencil2d_add_frame, pencil2d_add_frames_batch, or pencil2d_add_audio, and no stated preconditions (e.g. that the .pclx project must already exist). The agent must guess at the workflow ordering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.