Move the active layer down one position in the layer stack, with an optional document ID to ensure the edit targets the intended Photoshop document.
Move the active layer down one position in the layer stack
| 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states that the operation affects the active layer and moves it one position down in the stack. It does not cover edge cases like what happens when the layer is already at the bottom, but the core behavior is transparent and non-misleading.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and precisely scopes the effect. No filler or redundant wording; every word contributes to understanding the operation.
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 one-step reorder tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It identifies the target (active layer), the operation (move down), and the magnitude (one position). Minor gaps such as behavior at the stack boundary are not critical for correct typical use.
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 only parameter, document_id, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including its source and purpose. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, but since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Move'), a precise resource ('the active layer'), and an exact effect ('down one position in the layer stack'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as photoshop_move_layer_up, photoshop_move_layer_to_top, and photoshop_move_layer_to_position.
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 the usage context: when you need to reorder the active layer downward by exactly one position. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using photoshop_move_layer_to_position for arbitrary reordering or photoshop_move_layer_to_bottom for jumping to the end.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.