Adds a new layer to an Aseprite file, optionally placing it inside a specified group for organized pixel art editing.
Add a new layer to the Aseprite file.
Args: filename: Name of the Aseprite file to modify layer_name: Name of the new layer group: Optional group to place the new layer inside, by name or "group/subgroup" path (default: top level)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| layer_name | Yes |
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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, side effects (e.g., auto-saving), or what happens if the file is not found. The description focuses only on the action and parameters, leaving the agent with limited understanding of runtime behavior.
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 concise with a single purpose sentence followed by a bulleted Args list. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No redundant or extraneous 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?
Given the simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter meanings adequately. It could optionally mention failure conditions (e.g., file not found, layer name already exists), but this is not strictly necessary for a basic add operation.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: filename (file to modify), layer_name (name of new layer), and group (optional path for placement). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles, which are generic.
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 the action 'Add a new layer' and the resource 'to the Aseprite file'. It uses a specific verb and resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_layer, duplicate_layer, or add_group.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_group or create_tilemap_layer. It lacks explicit context for when not to use it or under what conditions it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.