Rename the active Photoshop layer to a new name. Use an optional document ID to ensure the correct document is active before renaming.
Rename the active layer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New name for the layer | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'rename', which implies mutation, but does not state whether it fails without an active layer, whether names are overwritten, or if it requires an open document. The document_id parameter's activation behavior is described in the schema, not the description, so the description adds no extra behavioral context.
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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple rename operation and front-loads the core action.
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?
The tool is simple, and the schema covers parameters. However, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., an active layer must exist) or error handling. Given the large number of sibling tools, it could benefit from a note about selecting a layer first, but it is not critical. It is minimally adequate but not rich.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add any meaning to the parameters; it just states the operation. The document_id parameter's purpose is explained in the schema, not the description, so there is no added value from the description.
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 the exact operation: 'Rename the active layer.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is clear and distinct from sibling tools like photoshop_delete_layer or photoshop_move_layer. No ambiguity about what it does.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention that the layer must be active, or that one may need to select a layer first using photoshop_select_layer_by_name. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.