Delete a layer by name from an Aseprite file to remove unwanted layers and simplify your sprite's structure.
Delete a layer by name.
Args: filename: Aseprite file to modify layer_name: Name of the layer to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as destructiveness, impact on cels or children, or undo capabilities. The description simply restates the action.
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 very concise with a single sentence and argument list. However, it could be better structured with a clear docstring format.
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 destructive operation with no output schema and two required params, the description should mention implications (e.g., deletion is permanent, affects cels). It only covers basic purpose.
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%, but the description explains both parameters: filename is the file to modify, layer_name is the layer to delete. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles.
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?
Description clearly states it deletes a layer by name, distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete other entities like frames, slices, or tags.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_layer_down or duplicate_layer. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.