ase_set_layer_visibilityShow or hide a specific layer in an Aseprite sprite. Provide sprite path and layer name, then set the visible flag to control its visibility.
Show or hide a layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visible | No | ||
| 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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'show or hide' implying a state change, but doesn't specify whether visibility is toggled or set to a specific value, nor does it explain the effect of the 'visible' parameter (default true). It lacks details on persistence, side effects, or error conditions.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action, but it is so brief that it sacrifices informational value. Conciseness is good, but it under-specifies behavior.
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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is barely sufficient. An agent could likely infer how to call it, but the lack of behavioral specificity (e.g., what happens if the layer doesn't exist, whether visibility is toggled or set) leaves gaps. For a mutation tool on a sprite, more context is 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any parameter-specific meaning. The parameter names are self-explanatory (sprite_path, layer_name, visible), but the description does not clarify the exact semantics of 'visible' (e.g., whether it toggles or sets an absolute state). The agent must guess from the default value.
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 'Show or hide a layer.' clearly states the verb (show/hide) and the resource (a layer), and is distinguishable from sibling tools like ase_set_layer_opacity or ase_set_layer_blend_mode, which modify other properties. It doesn't explicitly name siblings but the purpose is clear.
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 alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that this is for toggling visibility as opposed to setting opacity or blend mode, which are separate tools. The agent must infer from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.