Change the name of a specific layer in an Aseprite file by providing the filename, current layer name, and new name. Useful for organizing sprite projects.
Rename a layer.
Args: filename: Aseprite file to modify layer_name: Current layer name new_name: New layer name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| new_name | 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the rename action without disclosing important behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the file in-place, requires saving, or can fail (e.g., if the layer doesn't exist).
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 short and structured as a docstring, but it wastes space by listing parameter names without adding information. While not verbose, it could be more concise or more informative.
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 simple rename tool with no output schema, the description provides the bare minimum (purpose and parameter names). It lacks completeness in terms of behavioral context, usage scenarios, and any side effects, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.
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. However, it merely lists parameter names without adding any additional meaning, format guidance, or constraints beyond the structure. The parameter names themselves are self-explanatory, but no extra value is provided.
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 verb 'rename' and the resource 'layer', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_layer' or 'duplicate_layer' by specifying the rename action.
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 (e.g., 'reorder_layer' or 'set_layer'). No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.