Delete the active Photoshop layer; optionally specify a document ID to target the correct document and prevent UI tab switches from retargeting the edit.
Delete the active layer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | No | Optional Photoshop document id from photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents. When set, the tool activates that document before running so a UI tab switch cannot retarget the edit. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Delete' which implies destructiveness, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the deletion is irreversible, if the background layer is protected, or if the operation can be undone via photoshop_undo). It also does not clarify that it operates on the active layer selected in the UI, which is a key behavioral constraint.
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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a single optional parameter and a simple action. It front-loads the primary purpose.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently informative. It does not disclose constraints like the active layer requirement, whether background layers are protected, or any return behavior. An agent may call it without understanding the risks or prerequisites. The tool's simplicity does not excuse the lack of critical context.
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 description does not mention the document_id parameter at all. However, the input schema fully describes it with 100% coverage, including its purpose and behavior. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb (Delete) and a specific resource (the active layer). It clearly distinguishes itself from other layer-related tools, especially the delete_layer_mask sibling, by naming the resource explicitly. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 to use it (to remove a layer) but provides no explicit context about prerequisites, such as requiring an open document or a non-background layer. There are no alternative delete-layer tools, so differentiation is not needed, but the description does not mention when not to use it or any preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.