Delete a cel from a specific layer and frame to clear pixel art content. Use this action when you need to remove unwanted artwork from a precise location in an Aseprite project.
Delete a cel from a named layer and frame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| layer_name | Yes | ||
| frame_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't disclose whether deletion is reversible, whether it affects other frames or layers, or what happens if the cel doesn't exist. No mention of return values or side effects.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It earns its place but could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the cel concept, the effect on the animation, or error conditions. Sibling tools like delete_frame and erase_region suggest related operations, but the description doesn't help an agent choose among them.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'named layer and frame' which maps to layer_name and frame_index, but filename is not mentioned. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names.
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?
The description 'Delete a cel from a named layer and frame' clearly states the action (delete), the resource (cel), and the context (named layer and frame). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_cel, copy_cel, and set_cel_position, though it doesn't 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like erase_region, delete_frame, or clear_cel-related operations. The description implies usage for deleting a cel but doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., cel must exist) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.