Scale a layer around its center, rotate it clockwise in degrees, and apply shear transformations to adjust artwork layers in Krita.
Scale (about the layer centre), rotate (degrees, clockwise) and/or shear a layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | No | ||
| scale_x | No | ||
| scale_y | No | ||
| rotate_degrees | No | ||
| shear_x_degrees | No | ||
| shear_y_degrees | 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 burden. It does disclose the pivot ('about the layer centre') and rotation direction ('degrees, clockwise'), which is genuine added detail, but says nothing about what happens when layer is null, whether the transform is destructive/undoable, or how scale factors are interpreted.
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?
A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with no filler. Every clause adds information: operation list, pivot, and unit convention.
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 six-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers the geometry well enough to invoke it, but leaves the layer targeting parameter and default/null behavior unexplained, which an agent needs in order to call it unambiguously.
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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the pivot point for scaling, the unit and direction for rotation, and that shear is degree-based, but leaves the 'layer' argument (name vs. id vs. active layer default) and the scale factor convention (1.0 vs. percent) undefined.
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?
Names three specific operations (scale, rotate, shear) on a clearly identified resource (a layer), which separates it from document-level siblings like rotate_image or scale_image. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so the distinction rests on the word '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 'and/or' phrasing implies the operations can be combined in one call, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (selection, active layer), and no routing to alternatives such as rotate_image or arrange_layer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.