Combine all visible layers into a single layer to simplify editing and reduce file clutter. Specify a document ID to target the correct Photoshop document.
Merge all visible layers into one
| 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. It states the core behavior (merging visible layers) but doesn't disclose what happens to hidden layers, whether the merge is destructive (e.g., does it discard hidden layers or keep them?), or what the result looks like. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the effect on hidden layers, whether the operation is reversible, or what the resulting layer structure looks like. An agent would need to infer these details from the tool name and general Photoshop knowledge.
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 schema already documents the document_id parameter well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 'Merge all visible layers into one' clearly states the action (merge) and the resource (visible layers), which distinguishes it from siblings like photoshop_flatten_image (which flattens all layers, not just visible ones) and photoshop_delete_layer. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it loses a point for not fully differentiating.
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 when to use it (when you want to combine visible layers), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like photoshop_flatten_image. The document_id parameter description provides some context about activation, but no explicit usage guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.