flatten

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does not deliver. It doesn't say whether the operation is destructive, whether flattened content is recoverable via undo, whether hidden layers are deleted or preserved, or whether original layers remain.

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?

It is a single short fragment, so there is no waste, but it reads as a truncated sentence ('All visible layers into one image layer') missing a subject or verb, which hurts front-loading and clarity.

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-sounding mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. It omits scope, side effects, and how the single project parameter is resolved.

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?

One parameter, 'project', with 0% schema description coverage. The description never references the project parameter or clarifies whether an active document is used by default; it neither names nor explains the one input.

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 action (flatten visible layers into one image layer), which distinguishes it from siblings like merge_down or rasterize_layer by noting 'visible layers'. The phrasing is terse but the verb+resource is clear.

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 indication of when to use this versus merge_down, rasterize_layer, or group_layers, despite several closely related siblings. The word 'visible' implies non-visible layers are excluded but this is never stated as guidance.

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