flatten_image

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits that flattening is destructive and discards layer structure. It also does not say whether hidden, locked, or non-visible layers are included, or whether the operation requires an active document.

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 six-word sentence that front-loads the action and names the scope; nothing is redundant and nothing pads the definition.

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 destructive, no-argument canvas operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum warn that the change collapses all layers irreversibly and note undo availability. It conveys the action but none of the risk context an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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?

"Merge all layers into one" states a specific verb (merge) and resource (all layers) plus the resulting state, so an agent knows exactly what the operation does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling merge_down, which a caller must resolve by name inference alone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative merge_down for collapsing a single layer. Usage is only inferable from the action itself, leaving the agent to guess which merge tool matches its intent.

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