merge_down

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It never says the operation is destructive (the source layer ceases to exist), whether the result is undoable, what happens when the target layer is the bottom-most or has a different blend mode, or whether the merged layer inherits the lower layer's properties.

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 with no filler and no repetition of the tool name. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the content gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a model of economical completeness.

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 layer operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves critical questions unanswered: destructiveness, undo behavior, layer-identifier format, and the role of the optional project parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and does not. 'layer' is only implicitly referenced as the thing being merged, with no indication whether it is a name, ID, or index, and 'project' is entirely unmentioned.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('merge a layer') plus a directional qualifier ('into the one below') that separates it conceptually from flatten and group_layers. It is clear what the operation does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those sibling tools.

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 statement of when to use this over flatten, group_layers, or rasterize_layer, and no prerequisite (e.g. at least two layers must exist, which layer pair is affected). The agent must infer everything about selection context from the name alone.

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