Move a GIMP layer to an exact zero-based stack position, with 0 as the top, to control its stacking order.
Move a layer to a zero-based stack position; 0 is the top of the layer stack.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer_id | Yes | ||
| position | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. It discloses the position-indexing convention but nothing about side effects, whether other layers shift, required session state, or reversibility for what is clearly a mutation.
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 filler; the most important convention (indexing origin) is stated immediately.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the indexing convention is covered. However, for a no-annotation mutation tool with 0% param coverage, missing details on session context, shifting behavior, and the two undocumented parameters leave it only partially complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the critical 'position' parameter (zero-based, 0 = top) but leaves session_id and layer_id entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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+resource ('Move a layer') and adds the key semantic detail of a zero-based stack position with 0 as the top. It is clearly distinct in spirit from layer_create/layer_delete/layer_update, though it does not explicitly name them.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The intent is inferable from the name and siblings, but nothing states when to reorder versus use layer_update or transform_layer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.