photopea_merge_layersMerge Photoshop layers by choosing down to combine the active layer with the one below or flatten to collapse all layers into a single background, baking layer styles and masks into pixels.
Merge layers: 'down' merges the active layer into the one below, 'flatten' merges everything into a single background layer. Layer styles and masks get baked into pixels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Which layers to merge |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond that: layer styles and masks are baked into pixels, which warns the agent that non-pixel data is permanently lost. It does not mention undo availability or how the merged layer is named, so it falls short of 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?
Two tight sentences: the mode semantics come first, the destructive side effect last. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, every clause carries information.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters most: the difference between modes and the irreversible loss of styles and masks. Minor gaps remain (result layer identity, whether undo can recover the state), but nothing blocking an agent from calling it correctly.
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 the enum is documented only as 'Which layers to merge', so the description carries the real semantic load by explaining exactly which layers each enum value affects. That is meaningful meaning added beyond the schema, though nothing is said about edge cases such as 'down' on the bottom-most layer.
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 ('Merge layers') and then defines both modes concretely: 'down' merges the active layer into the one below, 'flatten' merges everything into a single background layer. It does not explicitly contrast with adjacent siblings like group_layers or ungroup_layers, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 tells the agent what each mode does, which implies when each is appropriate, but it never states when to prefer merging over grouping, nor any precondition (e.g., an active layer must be selected for 'down'). Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.