Copy selected animation layers and cels from one Aseprite document to another to merge or reuse assets.
Copy selected animation layers and cels from one Aseprite document into another.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| replace | No | ||
| layer_names | Yes | ||
| source_filename | Yes | ||
| target_filename | Yes | ||
| create_missing_frames | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'Copy' and does not mention that the target may be modified, that replace defaults to true, how missing frames are handled, or what happens when layers with matching names already exist in the target.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
This is a cross-document mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, but the description provides only the basic operation. An agent lacks essential context about default behaviors, overwrite semantics, and frame handling, so the definition is not complete enough for correct invocation in non-trivial cases.
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 for undocumented parameters. It vaguely maps 'one Aseprite document into another' to source/target filenames and 'layers' to layer_names, but it says nothing about the replace or create_missing_frames booleans, nor how 'cels' are selected.
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 states a specific verb ('Copy'), a specific resource ('animation layers and cels'), and a clear destination ('from one Aseprite document into another'). This distinguishes it from within-document siblings like copy_cel and copy_frame, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy_sprite, export_layers, or within-document copy operations. The intended use is implied by the action, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.