Reorder image layers by moving them up, down, to top/bottom, to a specific index, into a group, or back to root for layered editing.
Reorder within its list: to=up/down/top/bottom, or index (0 = bottom). into= moves it inside a group; into="root" takes it out of its group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| into | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| layer | Yes | ||
| 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses genuinely useful semantics the schema lacks (allowed 'to' values, index 0 = bottom, the 'root' sentinel for ungrouping), but says nothing about required layer state, permissions, failure modes, cross-project moves, or whether the reorder is reversible (undo is a separate sibling).
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 dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the parameter modes unpacked in semicolon-separated clauses. No filler, no restating of the name or title.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no enum definitions in the schema, the description covers the core mechanics but omits the 'project' parameter entirely, doesn't identify what 'layer' accepts, and gives no return-value or error context. Adequate but with visible gaps.
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 there are no enums, so the description must compensate — and it does substantially for three of the five params: it enumerates the valid 'to' values, explains 'index' origin (0 = bottom), and defines 'into' including the 'root' sentinel. It leaves 'layer' (name vs ID?) and 'project' (current vs named project?) undocumented, keeping it short of a 5.
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 (reorder/move a layer) and explains the two operation modes: positional reordering within a list and relocating into/out of a group. It is distinguishable from siblings like group_layers, ungroup, and align_layer, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.
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 implies when each parameter mode applies (to=up/down/top/bottom vs index vs into=<group> vs into="root"), which is useful operational guidance. However, it gives no context for choosing move_layer over alternatives such as set_transform or group_layers, and doesn't clarify what happens if 'to' and 'index' are both supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.