Deletes the layer mask from the active Photoshop layer, with an optional document ID to target a specific document before running.
Delete the layer mask from 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does state the mutating action ('Delete') and its target ('layer mask'). However, it does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, what happens if there is no mask, or whether any other layer state is affected.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and the description is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.
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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the precondition of an active layer with a mask, but the core call is fully understandable from the given text plus schema.
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 100%, so the single optional document_id parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning about the parameter, which is acceptable but not additive.
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 and resource: 'Delete the layer mask from active layer.' It clearly distinguishes this from related siblings like photoshop_delete_layer (deletes an entire layer), photoshop_create_layer_mask, and photoshop_apply_layer_mask.
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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as having an active layer with an existing mask. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.