layers_merge_visible

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — visible layers are collapsed while hidden layers survive — but says nothing about reversibility, undo requirements, or what happens to the resulting merged layer.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its distinguishing constraint with zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the core behavior is clear. However, the undocumented merge_type modes and absent mutation semantics (reversibility, permissions) leave real gaps for a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations.

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 0% for two parameters. The description never mentions session_id and completely ignores merge_type, whose three enum values (expand, clip-image, clip-bottom) are left unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (merge) and resource (visible layers) and adds the scope qualifier that hidden layers are preserved. This meaningfully separates it from layer_merge_down and document_flatten, though neither 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?

Usage is implied: use this when you want visible layers combined but hidden ones kept. The 'preserving hidden layers' clause hints at the alternative (flatten for everything), but no when/when-not guidance or sibling reference is stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.