Remove strokes from a painting:stroke layer by 0-based index range, or delete a single stroke by omitting the end index.
Remove strokes from a painting:stroke layer by index range. Indices are 0-based. If 'end' is omitted, removes only the stroke at 'start'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | End index (inclusive, 0-based). Omit to remove only 'start'. | |
| start | Yes | Start index (inclusive, 0-based). | |
| layerId | Yes | ID of the painting:stroke layer. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (strokes are removed) and the single-vs-range semantics, but says nothing about whether the erasure is undoable, whether subsequent stroke indices shift after removal, or what happens on out-of-range input.
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?
Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core action stated first and the edge case (omitted 'end') spelled out last. Every sentence earns its place.
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 covers the mechanics but omits the outcomes an agent needs: return value (e.g. count of removed strokes), error behavior for invalid indices, and whether the layer must already exist. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 100% – all three parameters are documented inline, including the identical 0-based inclusive semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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 concrete verb (remove) and resource (strokes on a painting:stroke layer) plus the index-range scope, so an agent can tell exactly what it does. It does not name any sibling for contrast, but no sibling in the list performs stroke erasure, so confusion risk is low.
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 explains the conditional behavior of an omitted 'end' but never says when to use this versus related tools (e.g. deleting a whole layer with design_remove_layer or masking with design_clear_mask), nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.