Show or hide the active layer in Photoshop to manage visibility during document editing.
Show or hide the active layer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visible | Yes | Whether the layer should be visible | |
| 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 carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the primary effect: showing or hiding the active layer. It does not mention whether the operation is non-destructive, what happens if there is no active layer, or whether a confirmation is returned. The minimal description is accurate but leaves basic behavior implicit.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, making the core function immediately scannable.
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 simple two-parameter setter with a fully described schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no mention of the active-layer prerequisite or how to target a specific layer, an agent may call it without ensuring the correct layer/document context. The optional document_id is well explained in the schema, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema: it doesn't connect 'show/hide' to the 'visible' boolean or explain document_id. Since the schema already covers both parameters well, the description does not need to, but it also adds no value here.
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 uses a clear verb phrase ('Show or hide') and specifies the target ('the active layer'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like photoshop_set_layer_opacity or photoshop_delete_layer.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention that the layer must be active/selected first, when to use photoshop_select_layer_by_name to target a different layer, or when to include document_id. The schema hints at document_id behavior, but the description itself gives no when-to-use vs alternatives context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.