Removes a layer's background using AI and adds a subject layer mask in Photoshop, converting smart objects or backgrounds when needed.
Photoshop: AI Remove Background on a layer (adds a layer mask around the subject; smart objects/backgrounds are converted as needed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | No | Layer name (searched in groups too); omit for the active layer. | |
| document | No | Document name; omit for the active document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the mechanism and side effects: it adds a layer mask around the subject rather than deleting pixels, and smart objects/backgrounds are converted as needed, which implies document mutation beyond the mask. It does not cover failure modes (no subject detected) or processing latency, which keeps it below a 5.
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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the caveats in a tight parenthetical. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and mutation-oriented annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (mask result, smart object conversion). Minor gaps remain around what is returned and how a no-subject failure manifests, but nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.
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 both parameters (layer, document) are fully documented in the schema including the omit-for-active behavior. The description only gestures at 'a layer' and adds no syntax or targeting detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('AI Remove Background on a layer') and scopes it to Photoshop, so the agent can identify it instantly. No sibling tool offers background removal, and the parenthetical distinguishes it from generic layer/mask operations like ps_layerOps or ps_selection.
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?
Usage is only implied: the description and schema together convey 'run this on a layer, or the active layer if omitted.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives (e.g. manual masking), and no stated preconditions such as requiring a raster subject.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.