ase_rename_layerRename any layer in an Aseprite sprite, including layers nested within groups, by providing the sprite path, current layer name, and new name.
Rename a layer (accepts group/child paths).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| layer_name | Yes | ||
| sprite_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 the rename action and path support, but does not explain path syntax, what happens when the target layer is not found, whether renaming affects cels/blend modes, or whether the operation is reversible.
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. Every part earns its place: the action, the target resource, and the important path-scoping detail.
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 low-complexity rename tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, key invocation details such as the exact path separator/format for group/child layers and behavior on missing or duplicate layer names are left unspecified, creating a clear gap.
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 all three undocumented parameters. It partially clarifies layer_name by noting group/child path support, but sprite_path and new_name receive no additional semantic guidance beyond their self-evident 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 names a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('a layer'), and the parenthetical 'accepts group/child paths' adds a key scoping detail. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like ase_duplicate_layer, ase_delete_layer, or ase_reorder_layer.
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 operation is unambiguous and clear context is provided: it is the tool for renaming layers, with no exclusions or alternative tools needed. The mention of group/child paths also signals when this tool is appropriate for nested layer targets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.