Restack a layer to top, bottom, up, or down; place it above a sibling or move it into a group parent to control stacking order.
Restack a layer. to = top, bottom, up or down; or above = a sibling to sit directly over;
parent = a group to move the layer into (top of it unless to/above say otherwise).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| above | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| parent | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does explain how ordering and parenting work, including precedence when `to`/`above` are provided, but it omits mutation-related details such as required target identification, failure behavior, and whether restacking affects grouping or rendering context.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently defines the key parameter interactions. Every clause contributes directly to invoking the tool correctly.
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 layer-ordering tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the main placement semantics adequately. However, it is incomplete because the target `layer` parameter is never explained and there is no clarification of required versus optional combinations.
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 define the parameters. It usefully explains allowed `to` values, sibling placement via `above`, and group placement via `parent`, but it does not describe the `layer` parameter at all, leaving a central input undocumented.
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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Restack a layer.' It also explains the main restacking modes, making the tool distinguishable in practice from layer creation, deletion, or transformation tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Restack a layer' and by the descriptions of `to`, `above`, and `parent`, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling layer tools or when not to use it. The parameter modes provide some context, but the agent must infer the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.