Create a tilemap layer and set the Aseprite grid by specifying the file, layer name, and tile width and height for pixel art.
Create a tilemap layer and set the Aseprite grid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| layer_name | Yes | ||
| tile_width | Yes | ||
| tile_height | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a layer and sets the grid, but does not explain whether an existing file must be open, whether a grid may be overwritten, what tilemap-specific side effects occur, or what happens on failure.
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 sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is efficient but very terse; the lack of supporting detail hurts other dimensions, not conciseness itself.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits prerequisites, parameter semantics, and operational context such as whether the grid applies to the document or the layer and whether existing tilemap data is affected.
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 needed to compensate by explaining the parameters, but it mentions none. tile_width and tile_height units and their role in the grid are undocumented, and filename and layer_name are only inferable from their names, not from the description or schema.
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 clearly names a specific action and resource: creating a tilemap layer and setting the Aseprite grid. It is more specific than generic layer tools like add_layer or set_tiles, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tilemap tools such as get_tilemap_info or draw_on_tile.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_layer, set_tiles, or get_tilemap_info. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, so an agent must infer intended usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.