Add an image layer from a file path or imported asset, then fit, scale, and position it—centered by default or placed above another layer.
Image layer from a file (path) or an imported asset. fit: contain, cover, width, height, none (ignored if scale given). Without x/y it is centered. above= to insert right above it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| fit | No | contain | |
| name | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| above | No | ||
| asset | No | ||
| scale | No | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: fit defaults to contain, fit is ignored when scale is given, missing x/y means centered, and above inserts directly above a named layer. However, it does not state whether this creates a new layer, permissions, or what the call returns.
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?
Front-loaded purpose followed by dense parameter notes; nearly every clause carries information. No filler, though the parameter notes are somewhat terse shorthand.
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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers source, positioning, fit/scale, and stacking, which is meaningful. Gaps remain around name, project, and layer-creation semantics, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 explains path/asset sources, the fit enum values, scale overriding fit, x/y centering, and above. It still leaves name, project, and the interaction between x/y and scale undiscussed, so coverage is partial rather than complete.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: adds an image layer from a file path or imported asset. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling add_* tools (add_text, add_shape, add_fill) since 'image' is explicit, though it does not name them. Clear and specific.
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 parameter-conditional behavior (centering without x/y, above=<layer>) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to prefer path over asset. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.