Flatten all layers in an Aseprite file into a single layer to reduce complexity and prepare assets for export.
Flatten all layers into one layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. It states the basic effect but does not disclose that flattening is destructive/irreversible, how layer properties are handled, or whether it applies per frame. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
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 sentence with zero filler and the core behavior is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool.
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?
Minimally viable for a simple operation: the core action is stated, but the filename parameter semantics and the destructive nature of flattening are left unexplained. With no annotations and no output schema, more context would be expected.
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% and the description never mentions the filename parameter, so the agent must infer its meaning from the parameter name alone. The description adds no information about what format, path, or identifier the filename expects.
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 the action (flatten), the object (all layers), and the result (one layer), which is specific and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like merge_layer_down or delete_layer. The resource and outcome are unambiguous.
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 on when to use flatten_sprite versus alternatives such as merge_layer_down or set_layer, and no exclusions are mentioned. The only usage hint is implicit in the verb 'flatten', not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.