Flatten all layers in a Photoshop document into a single background layer, simplifying the file for export or further editing.
Flatten all layers into a single background 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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Flattening is implicitly destructive, but the description does not disclose that all layer structure will be discarded, that hidden layers are included, or that the operation may be irreversible. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is functional, and the action is immediately clear.
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 too sparse. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, hidden layer behavior, or what happens if no document is active. A more complete description would at least warn about the irreversible loss of layer structure.
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% because the only parameter, document_id, has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?
The description states a specific verb ('flatten') and resource ('all layers') and the outcome ('a single background layer'). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like photoshop_merge_visible_layers, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that alternative.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as merge_visible_layers or delete_layer. The description does not mention prerequisites, hidden layer handling, or when flattening is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.