Remove a specific layer from a Pencil2D project by name or ID to delete unwanted content while keeping other animation layers intact.
Remove a layer from a Pencil2D project by name or ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | Yes | Path to the .pclx file. | |
| layer_name_or_id | Yes | Name or integer ID of the layer to delete. |
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 full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that deletion is destructive/irreversible, whether it removes contained frames, what happens if the layer is not found, or whether a save is required afterward.
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 zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a destructive mutation tool.
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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits safety warnings, preconditions, error handling, and post-operation state, leaving an agent unable to call it safely with confidence.
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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description repeats the name-or-ID identification but adds no format, constraints, or error behavior beyond the schema, matching the baseline.
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 (Remove) and resource (a layer) scoped to a Pencil2D project, and clarifies identification by name or ID. It implicitly contrasts with sibling add_layer, but does not explicitly name 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 add_layer or other layer operations, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be closed or the layer must be empty), and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.