Change a layer's fill or gradient, setting color, angle, and center point for non-destructive image edits.
Change a fill/gradient layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cx | No | ||
| cy | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| angle | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| layer | Yes | ||
| color2 | No | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Change' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, whether a fill layer must already exist, or the effect on gradient stops and other layer settings.
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 single sentence is technically concise with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For an 8-parameter mutation tool it is far too terse to be front-loaded with useful information.
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?
An 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation is left almost entirely unexplained. The description does not give an agent enough to call it correctly.
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?
All 8 parameters (cx, cy, kind, angle, color, color2, layer, project) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Nothing indicates what kind accepts, what cx/cy mean, or how color2 interacts with color for gradients.
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 verb and resource ('Change a fill/gradient layer'), which is enough to place it next to siblings like add_fill. However, it never clarifies scope: whether it edits an existing fill layer, what properties are changed, or how it differs from add_fill or set_layer beyond the verb.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_fill (to create a fill) versus set_fill (to modify one). The agent must infer the selection rule from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.