Merge all visible layers into one layer to finalize a pixel art composition. Use as the final step once all layer edits are complete.
Flatten all visible layers into one. Do this last, once the composition is settled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | No | Document to act on: a short name inside the art folder ("hero"), a relative path, or an absolute .aseprite path. Omit to use the active document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only *visible* layers are collapsed, which is meaningful scope information, but omits the critical behavioral facts: that flattening destroys layer separation irreversibly and what happens to hidden layers (dropped or preserved).
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the timing constraint. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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, zero-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the operation and the workflow timing. A brief note on irreversibility or hidden-layer handling would make it complete.
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?
Only one optional parameter, documented at 100% schema coverage, which already explains the short-name/relative-path/absolute-path/omit-for-active-document forms. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Flatten all visible layers into one') with a clear scope qualifier ('visible'). This implicitly distinguishes it from aseprite_merge_layer_down, which merges a single adjacent pair, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
'Do this last, once the composition is settled' gives real sequencing guidance and is genuinely useful for workflow ordering. It does not, however, say when NOT to flatten, nor does it route the agent to alternatives like aseprite_merge_layer_down for partial merges.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.