ase_set_layer_opacitySet the opacity of a target layer in an Aseprite sprite to a value from 0 (transparent) to 255 (opaque). Provide the sprite path, layer name, and desired opacity to adjust the layer's transparency.
Set layer opacity 0-255.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| opacity | 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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation and the numeric range but does not mention side effects, whether the change is immediately applied, how invalid values are handled, or whether opacity interacts with visibility or cel opacity.
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 that is front-loaded with the action and target. There is no filler or repetition, so every word earns its place.
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 simple setter with an output schema present, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits practical context like what the opacity value represents, whether 255 is fully opaque, and how this differs from similar opacity-related tools. An agent could invoke it correctly, but with minimal guidance.
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. It adds meaning by specifying the opacity range (0-255) and maps 'layer' to layer_name, which helps. However, it provides no additional detail about sprite_path or how layer_name is resolved.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and clearly identifies the resource ('layer opacity') plus the valid value range ('0-255'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like ase_set_layer_visibility, ase_set_layer_blend_mode, and ase_set_cel_opacity.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ase_set_cel_opacity or ase_set_layer_visibility. There is no explicit or implicit exclusion, and no mention of when a different opacity-related tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.