merge_visible_layers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior (only visible layers are merged) and states the return value {layer_name, layer_id}, but it omits what happens to the source layers, whether hidden layers survive, whether the operation is undoable, and whether an image must be active.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the operation stated first and parameter and return sections separated clearly. The parameter line largely duplicates the schema's title and default, which is minor waste.

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?

A destructive layer-collapsing mutation with no annotations and no output schema needs more disclosure than is present. The return shape is covered, but the irreversible nature of the merge, the fate of hidden layers, and undo behavior are all unaddressed.

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. It labels image_index as the "target image index" and repeats the default 0, which adds a little meaning (which image the merge applies to) but no format, range, or behavior for an invalid index.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Merge all visible layers into a single layer") with a clear scope qualifier ("visible"). That distinguishes it somewhat from flatten_image, but the description never explicitly contrasts the two, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the obvious alternative flatten_image, which also collapses layers. The agent is left to guess whether merging visible layers preserves hidden layers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.