Renames an existing layer in an Aseprite file by specifying the filename, current layer name, and new name. Updates layer names to match your desired naming convention.
Rename a named layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| new_name | Yes | ||
| layer_name | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the layer is renamed, but it does not mention potential side effects, failure conditions, whether references to the old name are updated, or whether the operation requires specific permissions. This is a meaningful omission for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, but it is also under-specified; the brevity is achieved by omitting useful behavioral and parameter context rather than by tightly packaging informative content.
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?
Given three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. An agent could infer the basic operation from name and parameters, but it lacks critical details about how the layer is identified, what happens if the layer does not exist, and whether renaming affects dependent data.
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%, and the description does not elaborate on any parameter. The parameter names 'filename', 'layer_name', and 'new_name' are fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not explicitly state which is the current name, which is the target file, or any constraints beyond the schema's minLength.
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 clear verb ('Rename') and resource ('a named layer'), so an agent understands the core operation immediately. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but no sibling directly performs renaming, so the purpose is not ambiguous. The phrase 'named layer' is slightly redundant but not misleading.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the layer existing or the new name being unique. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and parameter list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.