I know about the dilemma.
It is BTW typical, and there are several related Murphy's Laws about the issue:
The most pertaining one to the case being obviously:
If a program is useful, it will have to be changed.
with the RISK of either:
Bugs will appear in one part of a working program when another 'unrelated' part is modified.
Program complexity grows until it exceeds the capability of the programmer who must maintain it.
For the record I have been in the past accusing many developers (particularly our good friend Wimb and - to a lesser extent - the good Steve6375) of being affected by featuritis, and I have no reason to give you a different treatment .
Heck! there are people that are (supposedly) being paid US$ 10 for this:
Now seriously, though personally I tend to prefer simple, vertical apps, each doing what their name suggests, there is nothing bad in this (as well as many other you implemented in the past) new feature in itself, but it adds complexity to the user .
Though I am not particularly a fan of applying it to everything, maybe the Pareto principle:
should be considered when deciding whether to add features to an existing tool or making a separate, brand new one .